IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 245 of 2004(A) ------------------------------ CRA.175/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.307/2001 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :- -------------------------------------------------------------------- N.J. ISSAC, NEDIYAPALAKKAL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSHY SEBASTIAN, VETTIKKATTU VEEDU, CHILAVU P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.245 of 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August 2011 O R D E R The counsel for the revision petitioner is absent and there is no representation. Counsel was absent on the last hearing dates also. 2. This revision is directed against the order of conviction concurrently passed against the accused for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay Rs.2,75,000/- as compensation to PW1, the complainant. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. 3. The cheque in question was for Rs.2,75,000/-. When the cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. All the statutory formalities were complied with. The complaint was filed in Crl.R.P.No.245 of 2004 -: 2 :- time. The learned Magistrate accepted the evidence given by PW1, the complainant and Exts.P1 to P6 documents produced by the complainant. Though the Bank Manager was examined as DW1 that did not affect the case of the prosecution regarding the execution of cheque or the dishonour of the same. The burden cast on him under Sec.139 could not be discharged by him. The finding entered by the learned Magistrate, after re-appreciation was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no illegality, irregularity or incorrectness in the findings entered by the two courts below. However, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner can be modified. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of as stated below:- The conviction is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence awarded by the courts below, the revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to PW1, the Crl.R.P.No.245 of 2004 -: 3 :- complainant and in default the accused/revision petitioner will undergo S.I. for six months. The revision petitioner is given two months time to pay the amount of compensation. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt