IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 947 of 2001(B) ----------------------------- CRA.139/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA ST.2857/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- C.RAJAMONY AMMA, KALICKAPARAMBIL, KUMARAPURAM P.O., DANAPPADY, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- 1. KRISHNA KUMAR, AKATHARA HOUSE, CHINGOLI P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.M. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.947 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of April 2008 ORDER Petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the instance of respondent No.1 herein. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and she was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. In appeal, the Sessions Court while confirming the order of conviction, modified and reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment and refixed the amount of compensation at Rs.60,000/- after adjusting the payment of Rs.50,000/- which was admittedly received by the complainant during the pendency of the case. Thus, petitioner was directed to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation. The above order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in Crl.R.P.No.947 OF 2001 :: 2 :: this revision petition. 3. The case of the complainant before the trial court was that the accused had offered to procure a seat for his brother in law for Computer Engineering in the Institute of Engineering Technology, Bangalore during the academic year 1993-1994. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- for the above purpose as demanded by the accused. But when the accused failed to arrange the seat as promised, the complainant had demanded repayment of the amount. The accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.1,10,000/- in discharge of the above liability. But when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured with the endorsement ‘full cover note received’. In spite of the statutory demand notice, the accused did not pay the amount. 4. Prosecution examined PWs1 to 11 and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked on its side. Exts.D1 to D5 were marked on the side of the defence. 5. It was noticed by the courts below that the accused had not denied her signature in the cheque. What was suggested to Crl.R.P.No.947 OF 2001 :: 3 :: PW1, when he was being cross-examined, was that the cheque had been taken away by the complainant from the house of the accused. She further asserted that the other entries like name, amount, etc. were incorporated in the cheque by the complainant. It was also contended that Ext.P1 cheque was not supported by consideration. In her reply to the statutory demand notice the accused had alleged that the complainant along with some other persons had gone to the residence of the accused and forced her son to sign certain papers under threat and coercion. At that time, the complainant had noticed a cheque book containing signed blank leaves lying on the table. He had taken one of the signed cheque leaves at that time. The accused had further stated in the reply that she was in the habit of keeping signed blank cheque leaves on the table usually. 6. The courts below had considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties elaborately and found that the complainant had established his case satisfactorily. I have been taken through the relevant materials on record. I have also carefully gone through the orders passed by the trial Crl.R.P.No.947 OF 2001 :: 4 :: court as well as the appellate court. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent order of conviction passed by the courts below. The learned Sessions Judge, while disposing of the appeal, had reduced the amount of compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.60,000/- after adjusting the payment of Rs.50,000/- made by the accused to the complainant during the pendency of the case. In fact, the complainant had fairly admitted that he had received the said sum from the accused. The modified sentence imposed by the appellate court, in my view, is eminently fair and reasonable. Moreover, as stated earlier, there is no material illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes