IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 412 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA NO.46/1998 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI S.T.NO.2447/1996 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, NILAMBUR REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- T.MOHANDAS, S/O.T.NARAYANAN, THEKKETHIL HOUSE, PALAMAD P.O., EDAKKARA, (VIA) NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. E.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, KAVUNGAL, EDAKKARA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, EDAKKARA POLICESTATION LIMIT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.412 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008. ORDER First respondent and counsel remained absent. There is no representation. I heard counsel for revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 2. Revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). Learned magistrate sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In appeal the substantive sentence was confirmed but the sentence of fine was modified as Rs.5,000/-. Still aggrieved, revision petitioner has filed this revision. 3. First respondent alleged that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.46,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque, dated 10.10.1996 for discharge of the debt. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and inspite of dishonour intimation and demand, revision petitioner did not pay the amount. First respondent gave evidence as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P7. Case pleaded by the revision petitioner in the reply notice (Ext.P7) is that his cheque leaf was found missing but when questioned under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, he claimed that he had taken a loan from first Crl.R.P.No.412/2001 2 respondent in the year 1992 and issued a cheque as security at that time. The said amount together with interest was paid. Learned counsel submitted that conviction of revision petitioner is not justified. 4. It is admitted that revision petitioner had handed over Ext.P1 to the first respondent. Evidence in that line is also given by PW1. As against what is stated in Ext.P7, the contention of revision petitioner is that he had received only Rs.20,000/- and that too in the year 1992 and discharged that liability. Revision petitioner has no consistent case. There is no material on record also to show that there was any such transaction in the year 1992 or that revision petitioner had discharged that liability. Nothing is brought out to disbelieve the evidence of Pws1. As such, courts below were justified in convicting the revision petitioner. No interference is called for. 5. So far as sentence awarded is concerned, the sentence as modified by the appellate court being reasonable. No interference is required. Resultantly, Revision Petition fails. It is dismissed. Bail bond is cancelled. Crl.M.P.No.1922 of 2001 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.412/2001 3 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.412 of 2001 ORDER 13th October, 2008