IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3427 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.14/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.102/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (ADDL. MUNSIFF), KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCUSED -------------------------------------- MR. M.SIDDIK, AGED 35/2009, S/O.MONU @ ABDUL KHADER, MUNDILA HOUSE, MEEYAPADAVU, VIA-MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. MR. T.B.SHAJIMON SMT. GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. MR.REMESH HEGDE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.THYAMPANNA HEGDE, KAJOOR HOUSE, BADAJE POST AND VILLAGE, KASARAGDO DIST. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 3427 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 O R D E R 1. Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.102/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod. The 2nd respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial the revision petitioner was found guilty. Consequently he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months with direction to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the 2nd respondent. In default of payment of compensation the revision petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In Crl. Appl. No.14/2008 the conviction was confirmed. But, the sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for 10 days with compensation. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in Crl.R.P.No. 3427 of 2009 2 appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments of the court below, I find that the 2nd respondent who was examined as PW1 supported by Exts.P1to P6 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from the 2nd respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 28.12.2006, drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Manjeshwar Branch was issued and that when Ext.P1 cheque was sent for collection it was returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo dated 29.12.2006 and P3 intimation dated 02.01.2007. Demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4, was caused. The notice was returned unclaimed as evidenced by Ext.P6. The liability was not discharged. Revision petitioner, during the trial took up a defence that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was borrowed from one Murali and as security, a blank Crl.R.P.No. 3427 of 2009 3 cheque was issued. The amount borrowed was discharged and that misusing the cheque so given this complaint was filed. However the revision petitioner did not care to adduce any evidence in support of his plea. The evidence of PW1 supported by Exts.P1 to P6 and the legal presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains uncontroverted. I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. The complaint was filed after complying the statutory procedures. The courts below arrived at a correct conclusion that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I find that the conviction under challenge is unassailable. 4. Taking note that the revision petitioner is a person without any employment and an ordinary money transaction had caused him to face the prosecution, I find that he is entitled to a little more leniency and that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court with Crl.R.P.No. 3427 of 2009 4 Rs.80,000/- as compensation would meet the ends of justice. 5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court with compensation of Rs.80,000/-. In default of payment of compensation the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of compensation. Till then, the bail bond executed by him will remain in force. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE shg/