IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2032 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.541/2002 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR ST.2517/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- -------------------------------------------------------------- SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.CHANDU, PALAKKAPARAMBIL KARA, EDAVILANGU. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINT/STATE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAGADEESAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, MATHELY, ALA, SREE NARAYANAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP: BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2032 of 2003. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur in ST.No.2517/1999, on his file, convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months with direction to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the first respondent who prosecuted the revision petitioner before the trial court. In Crl.Appeal No.541/2002, the IIIrd Addl.Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Thrissur, by judgment dated 4.7.2003, while confirming the conviction, reduced the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for one month. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction as confirmed in appeal with modified sentence, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.2032/2003. -: 2 :- 2. Sri.T.M.Chandran, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is reported dead long back and none of the legal heirs had come forward to get impleaded. However, the learned counsel was heard and perused the judgments of the courts below. 3. The first respondent who was examined as Pw1 supported by Exts.P1 to P10 had succeeded to establish that the deceased revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the 1st respondent and in discharge of that liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 22.1.1999 drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Kodungallur Branch was issued and that when presented for collection it was returned dishonoured along with Exts.P2 and P3 memos for insufficient funds. Despite the acknowledgment of lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4, the liability was not discharged. Ext.P7 reply was caused by the revision petitioner stating that the revision petitioner Crl.R.P.No.2032/2003. -: 3 :- borrowed only Rs.10,000/- and a blank cheque was issued along with signed blank papers. However, the revision petitioner didn’t care to substantiate his defence. The result is that the evidence of Pw1 supported by the presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains uncontroverted. The courts below had given reliance to the testimony of Pw1. I find little reason to interfere with the finding of facts especially in the absence of evidence to establish the defence plea that only a lesser amount was borrowed and a blank cheque was issued. I find that the courts below were perfectly correct in giving reliance to the testimony of Pw1 supported by Exts.P1 to P10. There is substantial compliance of the procedures mandated. The conviction is based upon cogent evidence and requires no interference. 4. Since the revision petitioner is now in his heavenly abode, no substantial sentence could be executed against him. Having taken note that the cheque amount Crl.R.P.No.2032/2003. -: 4 :- was only Rs.20,000/- and it was deposited by the revision petitioner as early as 29.9.2003, I find that the amount deposited would be a sufficient as compensation. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the substantive sentence is set aside and the compensation amount is reduced to Rs.20,000/-. The first respondent is at liberty to withdraw the amount already deposited. P.S.GOPINATHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-