IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1545 of 2006() ----------------------------------------- CRA.399/2003 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.837/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------- K.VENUGOPAL, VIMALA BHAVAN, NADUVILAKKARA, THEVALAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.T.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, REMANI MANDIRAM, CHARUMMOODU, NEAR LAKSHMI STORES, VELLIMON P.O., KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRIMINAL.R.P. NO. 1545 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam in Crl.A.399/03. That appeal was preferred against the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.837/00 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kollam. The trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The said conviction and sentence was affirmed by the appellate court. 2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- and issued a cheque dated 7.7.00 towards discharge of the liability which when presented for encashment returned with endorsement insufficiency of funds. A statutory notice was issued and thereafter prosecution was initiated. The accused had denied the Cr.R.P. 1545 OF 2006 -:2:- charge against him. The defence considered all the oral testimonies of PW1 and DWs.1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. The complainant was examined as PW1. According to him the revision petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- and had issued Ext.P1 cheque towards the discharge of the liability. In spite of notice he did not settle the claim. It is submitted that he was very severally cross- examined. A suggestion was made to him to the effect that the father-in-law of the accused has given a cheque. He also denied the case of any mis-appropriation. Defence evidence consists of evidence of DWs.1 and 2. DW2 is the postman attached to the post office. He had deposed about the factum of intimation given and returning of the postal article as unclaimed. The Courts below on appreciation of the materials were satisfied with the evidence tendered regarding the issuance of cheque as well as service of notice and therefore found him guilty. I do not find any perversity or illegality which requires interference so far as it relates to the conviction is concerned. So I sustain the finding of conviction u/s 138 of the N.I.Act. Cr.R.P. 1545 OF 2006 -:3:- 3. So far as the sentence is concerned I feel leniency can be shown provided the revision petitioner is having the eagerness to pay the amount. Therefore I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to one till the raising of the Court and convert the compensation into one that of fine of Rs.25,000/- which when realised shall be paid to the complainant. Therefore the Criminal Revision is disposed of as follows: (1) The conviction u/s 138 of the N.I. Act is sustained. (2) The revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment till the raising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- which on realisation be paid to the complainant in the case and in case of default of payment of fine the revision petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. (3) The revision petitioner shall appear before the trial court to receive the sentence and also for payment of fine on 16.3.2009 failing which the trial court is directed to execute the sentence. Cr.R.P. 1545 OF 2006 -:4:- (4) If any amount has been deposited by way of compensation in this case it can be treated as fine and let it be disbursed to the complainant on proper application. The Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-