IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1786 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.132/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.957/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- CHELLAPPAN N.C., NEDUMCHIRAYIL HOUSE, VILLOONNI P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, GANDHI NAGAR BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA.M.K THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------ Crl.R.P.No.1786 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010. O R D E R The accused/revision petitioner challenges his conviction and sentence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused availed a trade loan of Rs.50,000/- from the Bank and he defaulted the repayment and as on 28.07.2006, there was a balance of Rs.47,077/- and towards discharge of the said liability, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque, which when presented for encashment, dishonoured for want of sufficient money in the account maintained by the accused. Though a formal notice was sent, no payment was made. Thus according to the complainant, the accused committed the offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the trial, one witness was examined for the complainant and Exts.P1 to P6 were produced and marked. Ext.D1 passbook was produced from the side of the defence towards Crl.R.P.No.1786/2010 2 evidence, though no witness was examined. On the basis of the materials on record, trial court found that the revision petitioner is guilty of the said offence and accordingly he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and the default sentence fixed as one month simple imprisonment. By judgment dated 30.06.2009 in Crl.Appeal No.132/2008, the Court of Sessions, Kottayam dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence. The appellate Court has specifically stated that a sum of Rs.26,014/- shall be given credit towards the loan arrears. 3. The above conviction and sentence are challenged in this revision petition. 4. I have heard Mr.K.M.Varghese, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.T.A. Shaji, Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank. Crl.R.P.No.1786/2010 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire amount has already been credited but the payment made by the revision petitioner was not considered by the trial court but the lower appellate Court has already directed the Bank/complainant to give credit of the amount paid. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the revision petitioner is a cardiac patient and he is undergoing treatment. Thus according to the learned counsel, lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence and the compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that he received a certificate issued from the Manager Gandhinagar Branch of the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank stating that the entire loan amount (Traders Account No.223) availed from the said branch by Mr.Chellappan cleared and loan account is closed. If that be so, I am of the view that without going into the merits of the case, this revision petition can be disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision Crl.R.P.No.1786/2010 4 petitioner u/s.138 of the N.I.Act and reducing the sentence of imprisonment till raising of the Court and deleting the sentence of fine ordered by the trial court as approved by the lower appellate court. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner u/s.138 of the N.I. Act as recorded by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. He is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till raising of the court and as the bank has already admitted that the entire loan transaction is closed, the sentence of fine imposed against the revision petitioner is set aside. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 19.07.2010 to receive the sentence of imprisonment. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. ss/.