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. 476 of 2005() ----------------------------- CRA.617/2003 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, THRISSUR CC.966/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- RAJEEVAN S/O. THANKAPPAN, PONGANAMOOLA HOUSE, VI/534, IKYA NAGAR, P.O.NADATHARA, NADATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.SONIYA.M SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. GOLDWIN CHITTIES & HIRE PURCHASE PVT.LTD., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, E.L.MATHEW JOHN, S/O. LONAPPAN, EDAKALATHUR HOUSE, P.O.PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.N.J.JOHNSON FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 476 OF 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.966/2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thrissur. The 1st respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month with direction to pay Rs.22,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In Crl.A.No.617/2003, the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Thrissur while confirming the conviction reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court with order to pay Rs.22,000/- as compensation to the 2nd respondent. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this Revision Petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.476/2005 2 2. Having gone through the judgments impugned, I find that the 1st respondent through the evidence of PW1 had succeeded to establish that a sum of Rs.22,000/- was due to the 1st respondent from the revision petitioner. In discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 14.2.2001 was issued. When presented for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds. A lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4, demanding discharge of the liability was caused. Despite the acknowledgment of the lawyer notice demanding discharge of the liability as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner took up a plea that while a kuri joined by the revision petitioner was auctioned, the 1st respondent obtained two blank cheques and misusing that cheques the prosecution was launched. The brother of the revision petitioner subscribed another kuri and in that kuri amounts were due from the 1st respondent to his brother; for realisation of which his brother had moved the Consumer Redressal Forum and the said matter was compromised. The 1st respondent agreed to adjust the said amount towards the amount due in that case and towards another case pending before the Crl.R.P.No.476/2005 3 Munsiff court, Thrissur. However, he had not adduced any evidence. The result is that there is unimpeached testimony of PW1 supported by Exts.P1 to P9. Though the revision petitioner has got a case that at the time of bidding the kuri Ext.P1 was issued, there is no material on record to come to a conclusion that the liability was anyway discharged. In the above circumstance, I find no merit in the defence. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence. The conviction is based upon cogent evidence. If at all the appellate court has gone wrong, it is only towards leniency in sentence. The sentence also requires no interference. The appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/22/7