IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3251 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRA.481/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.2723/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD ...................................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- THILAKADAS A., S/O.ARUMUGHAN PARIKKINGAL HOUSE, KARINKARAPPULLY AYYAPPANKAVU, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1.SINDHU S, W/O. A.RADHAKRISHNAN ELAYAPURAKKAL HOUSE, VADAKKUMURI, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD. 2.STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No. 3251 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused in ST.No.2723/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - III, Palakkad. He was prosecuted by the first respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. Hence he was sent for trial. The learned Magistrate, after trial arrived a finding of guilty. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and directed to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. In appeal, the Sessions Judge, Palakkad by Judgment dated 16/9/2008 confirmed the conviction. The substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. The direction to pay compensation was sustained. Assailing the legality and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.3251/2009 2 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments of the Courts below; I find that the first respondent who was examined as PW1 supported by Ext.P1 to P4 had succeeded to establish that on 21.3.2005, the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 25.4.2005 was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo. Demanding discharge of liability, a notice dated 1.5.05, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 was caused. Despite the acknowledgment notice, the liability was not discharged. The evidence of PW1 is further corroborated by presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The plea of the revision petitioner is that the first respondent had taken away the cheque and misusing that cheque, the prosecution was launched But, he did not care to adduce any evidence to establish his plea. The result is that the evidence of PW1 remains uncontroverted. There is no material on record to show that the first respondent obtained Ext.P1 Crl.R.P.No.3251/2009 3 cheque, in any manner other than what was deposed by PW1. In the above circumstance the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived the conclusion of guilty. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction entered. 3. The sentence as modified in appeal is very lenient. It requires no interference. In the result, the revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of compensation. Till then, the bond executed by him would remain in force. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE ss