IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 354 of 2005() ----------------------------- CRA.104/1999 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT-1, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.402/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :- -------------------------------------------------------------------- T.G.RADHADEVI, RADHAKRISHNA BHAVAN, PERINGARA P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GEORGE VARKEY, SANAKARAMANGALATH FINANCIERS, THIRUVALLA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW FOR R1 SMT.K.MEERA FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt P. S. GOPINATHAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.R.P. No.354 of 2005 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 22nd day of July 2011 O R D E R Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.402 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tiruvalla. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty, she was sent for trial. The first respondent was examined as PW1. Another witness was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the revision petitioner was questioned under Sec.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The revision petitioner took a plea that she had no money transaction with the first respondent. On the other hand, her son had some money transaction and a blank cheque was given as a security for the same. Misusing that cheque, the prosecution was launched. However, no defence Crl.R.P. No.354 of 2005 -: 2 :- evidence was adduced. The learned Magistrate on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a conclusion that the revision petitioner was guilty and consequently she was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. In appeal, the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc) Fast Track Court-I, Pathanamthitta while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay `4,00,000/- as compensation to the first respondent. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was preferred. 3. I have heard Sri.S.Subhash Chand, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, who had taken me through the evidence of PW1. Going by the evidence on record, I find that the first respondent had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of `2,50,000/-. In discharging of that liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 31.10.1995 drawn on Federal Bank, Chengannur Crl.R.P. No.354 of 2005 -: 3 :- Branch was issued. When presented for collection through the South Indian Bank, Tiruvalla Branch, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds as evidenced by Ext.P2. Demanding to discharge the liability, a notice copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 was caused. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. Though the revision petitioner has got a case that Ext.P1 was issued blank as a security for the money owed by her son, there is no supporting evidence. Defence plea remains to be suggestion. There is no suggestion to PW1 that there was enemity between the revision petitioner and PW1 so as to implicate the revision petitioner in an offence like the one on hand. There is also no suggestion that the liability if any owed by the son of the revision petitioner was discharged. There is also no suggestion that the 1st respondent got Ext.P1 in any manner other than what was deposed by PW1. It is pertinent to note that after acknowledging the notice demanding discharge of the liability, the revision petitioner remained silent. The Crl.R.P. No.354 of 2005 -: 4 :- silence of the revision petitioner, who is a retired teacher looms large. Had the defence now advanced is true she would have retorted to the notice. In the above circumstance, I find that defence projected by the revision petitioner during trial is the result of an after thought and she has no good defence. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that Ext.P1 was drawn for valuable consideration and issued in discharge of the liability. There is not even any attempt to rebut the legal presumptions. In the above circumstance, I find every reason to believe the prosecution case and that the conviction under challenge is based upon cogent evidence. No interference is warranted. No error, illegality or impropriety was committed by the courts below in appreciating the evidence so as to be rectified in exercising the revisional powers. Though the appellate court was lenient in reducing the substantive sentence to one till the rising of the court, the compensation ordered by the appellate court is exorbitant. Therefore, regarding the Crl.R.P. No.354 of 2005 -: 5 :- compensation, interference is warranted. I find that the compensation amount is to be reduced to `2,50,000/-, the cheque amount. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of :- While confirming the conviction and sentence, the compensation awarded is reduced to `2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) with default sentence as ordered by the appellate court. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the compensation amount. Till then, the bail bond executed by her shall remain in force. The amount, if any deposited, shall be given credit to. P. S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Jvt