IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 9 of 2011() --------------------------- CRA.265/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.48/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR .................... REVISION PETITIONER /APPELLANT / ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------ SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN CETTIYAR, SARAVANA, KOONAYIL, PARAVUR, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENTS /STATE AND RESPONDENT / STATE & COMPLAINANT : --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. 2. SARATHCHANDRA MOHANAN PILLAI, K.P.SADANAM, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHANNOOR - 691572. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.9 OF 2011 (A) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 O R D E R Revision is by the accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I.Act', concurrently by the two courts below. He has pleaded not guilty. Negativing his plea, on his conviction, the learned Magistrate has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for four months more. Fine amount, if realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. In appeal, affirming the conviction, the learned Sessions Judge reduced the substantive term of simple imprisonment to one month retaining the amount fixed as fine, but, enhancing the default term of simple imprisonment to four months. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. Crl.R.P.No.9/2011 2 2. Notice given, the 2nd respondent/complainant has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. The defences projected during the trial of the case by the accused were reiterated by his counsel to contend that both the courts have gone wrong in holding the accused guilty of the offence and convicting him thereunder. He had disputed of having any transaction with the complainant and further contended that the two cheques, the dishonour of which had given rise to his prosecution, related to the account maintained by a firm namely “Lekshmi Oil Industries”, and as such, he was not liable to be prosecuted on dishonour of cheque of that firm. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find no merit in the contentions so advanced by the counsel. Other than putting forth some suggestions indicated as above by the defence counsel during the cross examination of the complainant examined as PW1, evidently, no worth mentioning material was tendered by the accused to hold that the cheques had not been Crl.R.P.No.9/2011 3 issued from his account in discharge of a debt or liability due to the complainant. In the context, it is to be taken note of that on dishonour of the cheques, the complainant had issued a statutory notice, but, after its acceptance, it was not responded even with a reply. Further more, the plea that the cheques were issued from the account of a firm, by way of suggestive question made, is hardly sufficient to show that the cheques were not issued from the account of the accused. Both the courts have found that the cheques were issued by the accused in his individual capacity and the plea canvassed that it related to the account maintained by a firm was devoid of any merit. To counter the evidence of the complainant other than producing some exhibits, two ledger copies and a pan card of the accused, nothing more was tendered in the case. The learned Sessions Judge after re- appreciating the evidence also concurred with the conclusion formed by the learned Magistrate, to hold him guilty of the offence. When such be the case, I find within the narrow limits of revisional jurisdiction, where re-appreciation of the evidence is permissible only in a case the conclusion/finding formed by the Crl.R.P.No.9/2011 4 inferior courts is shown to be perverse or it could not have been formed legitimately on the materials produced on record, I find the contentions raised by the counsel to unsettle the concurrent finding of guilt entered against the petitioner cannot be given any merit at all. Conviction of the accused, it is seen, is supported by unimpeachable legal evidence and it deserves only to be affirmed. At this stage, the learned counsel requested for some more time to pay off the compensation awarded and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. It is submitted that the accused had met with an accident and that he has suffered disc collapse. Though the amount involved in the cheques is substantial and the two cheques are seen as issued as early in 2004, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel, I find, some more time as indicated hereunder, can be provided to him to pay off the compensation. 4. Affirming the conviction and sentence, the accused is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravur on 12.12.2011 to serve out the substantive term Crl.R.P.No.9/2011 5 of imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and to report the payment of fine. Till the date fixed as above for his appearance, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence. In default of his appearance and non-payment of the fine, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. With the above direction, the revision is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.No.9/2011 6