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. 3428 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.161/2008 of III ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM CC.2118/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER / APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.P.THANKACHAN, PALLIPATTU HOUSE, PALLIPATTU ELECTRICALS, PAINGOTTOOR P.O. MUVATTUPUZHA VIA, PIN - 686 671. BY ADV. MR. LEGY ABRAHAM SMT. A.M.FASEENA RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. BINNY P.JOHN, BLIND SCHOOL QUARTERS, KEEZHMADU, ALUVA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN 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. 3428 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 O R D E R 1. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.2118/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva. The 1st respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court after due trial arrived at a conclusion of guilt. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and ordered to pay Rs.85,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, Crl. Appl. No.161/2008 was filed. The learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, to whom the appeal was made over, confirmed the conviction. The substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Crl.R.P.No. 3428 of 2009 2 court. Order to pay compensation with default clause was sustained. 3. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments of the courts below, I find that the 1st respondent through his testimony as PW1, supported by Exts.P1 to P6 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.85,000/- from the 1st respondent and in discharge of that liability, issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 15.03.2004 drawn on Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank, Paingottur Branch and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos dated 16.07.2004 & 26.07.2004 respectively. Though a lawyer notice demanding discharge of the liability was caused as evidenced by Ext.P4 and it Crl.R.P.No. 3428 of 2009 3 was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6 the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner took up a defence that he borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the father of the 1st respondent and issued three cheques as security. It was also pleaded that the liability was discharged. But, the revision petitioner did not care to adduce any evidence. Result is that the evidence of PW1 corroborated by Ext.P1 to P6 and the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains uncontroverted. There is nothing on record to show that the 1st respondent got Ext.P1 in any manner other than what was deposed by PW1. The court below had correctly appreciated the evidence arrived at a conclusion of guilty. The conviction is unassailable. 5. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court. If at all erred, it is towards leniency only. The order to pay compensation with default clause as confirmed by the Crl.R.P.No. 3428 of 2009 4 appellate court is quite appropriate. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. 6. In the result, the revision petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to deposit the compensation amount. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE shg/