IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3905 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.621/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.967/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- N.SIVANANDA PRABHU, PARTNER, G.R.PREBHU & SONS, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED/STATE ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.S.XAVICHAN, THAYIL BUILDINGS, K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3905 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kottayam in S.T.No.967 of 2006 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and to pay Rupees two lakhs as compensation to the second respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Criminal Appeal No.621 of 2007, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to imprisonment for a day till rising of the court and a fine of Rupees two lakhs with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. Fine, if realised was ordered to be paid to the second respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was preferred. 2. Having heard either side and perusing the judgments of the courts below, I find that the second respondent who was Crl.R.P.No.3905 of 2009 2 examined as PW.1 had succeeded to establish that on 11/11/2005 the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rupees two lakhs from the second respondent and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 11/1/2006 for the said amount was delivered and that when sent for collection Ext.P1 was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos dated 14/1/2006. Though a notice demanding discharge of the liability as evidenced by Ext.P4 was caused and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. The plea of the revision petitioner was one total denial. He has no good explanation as to how the second respondent obtained his cheque. The silence of the revision petitioner after acknowledging the notice demanding discharge of the liability would show that the revision petitioner had in fact no good defence. The evidence of PW.1 would show that the revision petitioner and the second respondent are adjacent shop owners. Though PW.1 was subjected to searching cross-examination, no material was disclosed to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 which is supported by the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Crl.R.P.No.3905 of 2009 3 Negotiable Instruments Act. The evidence of PW.1 remains uncontroverted. It is also pertinent to note that the revision petitioner had not disputed the signature in Ext.P1. In the light of the above evidence I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly arrived a conclusion of guilty. I find little reason to interfere with the conviction under challenge. 3. The lower appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rupees two lakhs with default sentence. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence also. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to remit the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj