IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2927 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.586/2009 OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), ERNAKULAM. CC.757/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------- M.B.BAIJU, S/O.ACHUTHAN BALAKRISHNAN AGED 34 YEARS, 11/208, MANAKKATHUNDY HOUSE, NEAR MARTINPURAM CHURCH, MARADU P.O., KOCHI-682 304. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. SAGIN P.G., S/O.P.GIRIJAN, AGED 35 YEARS, PONNATTU HOUSE, PANANGADU P.O., KOCHI-682 506. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY FOR R1 SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY FOR R1 SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY FOR R1 SRI.ABU MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CR. R.P. NO. 2927 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. 757 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. The first respondent herein prosecuted the appellant alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with pleading that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- and in discharge of the same, Ext.P1 cheque dated 5.7.2007 drawn on Indus Bank Limited, Kochi Branch was issued and that when presented for collection through the Union Bank of India, Kannamaly Branch, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds and despite the notice demanding discharge, the liability was not cleared. 2. Since the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty when the particulars of the offence was read over and explained by the Magistrate, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, the first respondent was examined as PW.1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. When the incriminating materials revealed in evidence were put to the revision petitioner he totally denied. No defence evidence was let in. CRL. R.P. 2927 OF 2010 2 3. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence on record, arrived at a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 7,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, Crl.A. No. 586 of 2009 was preferred. By the impugned judgment dated 8.3.2010, the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam., while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. Taking note that during the trial the revision petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- the fine was reduced to Rs. 3,50,000/- with a default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for three months. 4. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision was preferred. 5. Having heard Sri. Biju Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned as well as the judgment of the trial court, I find that the first respondent, who was examined as PW.1, supported by Ext.P1, had succeeded in establishing that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.750,000/- for the discharge of which Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when ExtP1 was sent for collection, it was returned as dishonoured for insufficient funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos. Though a lawyer notice demanding CRL. R.P. 2927 OF 2010 3 discharge of the liability was caused, the appellant did not discharge the liability but Ext.P4 reply notice was caused. Though PW.1 was subjected to searching cross examination, no material was disclosed to disbelieve him. Evidence of PW.1 is supported by the presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that Ext.P1 was drawn for valuable consideration and issued in discharge of liability. The revision petitioner has no good explanation as to how the first respondent obtained Ext.P1 cheque. In the above circumstance, going by the judgments impugned, I find that the courts below had correctly appraised the evidence of PW.1 supported by Exts.P1 to P5 and rightly come to a conclusion of guilt. The conclusion is based upon cogent evidence. The Appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence to imprisonment till the raising of the court. The fine imposed is also just and no interference is called for. In the result, the Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to deposit the fine amount. The bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force till the fine imposed is deposited. P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-