IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 758 of 2004() ----------------------------------------- CRA.98/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.225/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- K.KAREEM, S/O. KALATHINGAL MOIDU, PROPRIETOR, SIMPLE ARTS, PANNIPPARA, PERAKAMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.A.KUNHALANKUTTY, S/O. P.A.KUNCHAPPU HAJI, KONDOTTY P.O., KONDOTTY. 2. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K SRI.SANDEEP.E. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.758 of 2004 --------------------------------------- Dated this 17th day of January, 2011 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.225 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Malappuram. He was prosecuted by the first respondent for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with an allegation that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of `.17,000/- from the 1st respondent and that in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 23.07.1999 drawn on Federal Bank was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and that despite the notice demanding discharge, the liability was not cleared. After trial, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty. Consequently he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay `.17,000/- as compensation to the de facto complainant. He preferred Crl.Appeal.No.98 of 2003 before the Sessions Judge, Malappuram, but not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.758 of 2004 -: 2 :- 2. There was no representation for the revision petitioner. I have gone through the judgments of the courts below. I find that the first respondent who was examined as PW1, supported by the testimony of PW2, Manager of the Federal Bank, Edavanna branch and Exts.P1 to P9 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the liability and that when presented for collection it was returned bounced for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3, memos. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which is marked as Ext.P4 was served on revision petitioner demanding discharge and it was acknowledged by revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. The first respondent was justified in launching the prosecution. Conviction is based upon cogent evidence. There is no reason to interfere with the conviction. However taking note that an ordinary money transaction had led the revision petitioner to face the prosecution, I find that he is entitled to a little leniency in sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of `.20,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to Crl.R.P.No.758 of 2004 -: 3 :- imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of `.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only). In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine, if collected, `.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Only) shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation. (P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) Sbna/-