IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3241 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.364/2007 OF II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM, CC.NO.15/2006 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, PUNALUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN CRL.A.NO.364/07,ACCUSED IN CC.15/06: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JALALUDEEN, S/O.HASSAN RAWTHER, SALEENA MANZIL, SAM NAGAR, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.V.ANIL KUMAR. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CRL.A.NO.364/07- COMPLAINANT IN C.C.15/2006/ RESPONDENT NO.2. IN CRL.A.NO.364/2007: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN, SHYLAJA VILASOM, VILLUMALA, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RITHWIK. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. --------------------------- CRL. R.P. NO. 3241 OF 2009 ------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. 15 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IV, Punallur. He was prosecuted by the 1st respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilty. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of four months with a direction to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the first respondent. In default of payment of compensation, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. 2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl. Appeal No. 364 of 2007 before the Sessions Judge, Kollam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the appeal was made over, by judgment dated 30-6-2009 confirmed the conviction. The substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- CRL. R.P. NO. 3241 OF 2009 2 with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. It was also ordered that if the fine amount is realized, the same shall be paid to the 1st respondent as compensation. 3. The legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal is now assailed in this revision petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent who was examined as PW1 with the support of Exts.P1 to P6 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the 1st respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 14-11-2005 drawn on Urukunnu Service Co-operative Bank, Tenmala Branch was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and Ext.P3 memos and that demanding discharge of liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which is marked as Ext.P4 dated 1-12-2005 was caused. Despite the acknowledgment of the CRL. R.P. NO. 3241 OF 2009 3 notice as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. There is no contra evidence. The conviction is based upon cogent evidence. I find no error, irregularity, illegality or impropriety committed by the courts below in arriving a conclusion of guilty. The appellate court is very lenient to reduce the imprisonment to one till rising of the court. If at all erred, it is only towards leniency. The fine imposed is quite appropriate. In the above circumstance I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. However, taking into account the submission made the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is facing acute financial difficulty, he is granted six months time to pay the fine amount provided he executes a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court within one month. P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE. PKK