IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1678 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.159/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC - I), KALPETTA ST.2071/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, SULTHAN BATHERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- PRADEEP.P., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN KUTTY, CHATHUKOLY HOUSE, KUPPADI (P.O.), SULTAN BATHERY, WAYANADU. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE SMT.G.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1.SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD., ACCOTE ROAD, CHENNAI, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASST. MANAGER INS ULTAN BATHERY BRANCH SRI.K.N.SUNIL, S/O.K.A.NARAYANAN, KANDANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, PURAKKADI, MYLAMPADI (P.O.), WAYANADU 671 323. 2.STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON 02/08/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.1678 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2011 O R D E R The revision is directed against the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused, concurrently, by the two courts below, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I.Act'. The trial Magistrate, on conviction, has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with default term of imprisonment for two months more. The learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, upholding the conviction, modified the sentence reducing the substantive term of imprisonment to one day, till the rising of the court, with default term of simple imprisonment for six months. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. Crl.R.P.No.1678/2011 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused. The execution of the cheque and passing of consideration thereunder, which were disputed by the accused, has not been proved by convincing legal evidence, is the challenge raised to impeach the conviction concurrently rendered by the two inferior courts. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the trial Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, it is seen that both the courts have meticulously appreciated the materials on record to conclude that the accused is guilty of the offence imputed. The evidence of the case consisted only that of the complainant and the materials produced by him, which was accepted by both the courts to hold him guilty of the offence. Statutory notice issued on dishonour of the cheque remained unanswered. When such be the case, the concurrent finding of the guilt and the conviction entered thereunder against the accused is not assailable, and the ground canvassed for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Crl.R.P.No.1678/2011 3 4. So far as the sentence imposed against the accused, sufficient leniency has been shown by the learned Sessions Judge. Revision lacks merit, and it s dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.No.1678/2011 4