IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1252 of 2004(B) -------------------------------------------- [CRL.A.NO.66/2003 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR DATED 20/02/2004, CC.NO.600/2000 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY DTD. 07/01/2003] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL LATHEEF, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL LIBERTY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SRI.TONY MATHEW. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GEEJAN, MANGALATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M. THOMRA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1252 of 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August 2011 O R D E R The accused is the revision petitioner. He was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. He was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for three months. The conviction was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. But the substantive sentence was reduced to S.I. for three months while maintaining the sentence regarding compensation. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the consistent case of the accused even in the reply notice sent by him was that he had borrowed Rs.15,000/- from one K.S.Raju and at that time two signed blank cheque leaves were given to him. The complainant obtained one of those cheque leaves from K.S.Raju, who is a friend of the complainant and this case was filed making use of that cheque. Crl.R.P. No.1252 of 2004 -: 2 :- 3. This contention is resisted by the learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant. The evidence given by the complainant as PW1 was, after thorough scrutiny, accepted by the learned Magistrate. There is a reappraisal of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge also. Though a contention was raised by the accused that the complaint was filed out of time that question was considered by both the courts below and found against the plea raised by the revision petitioner. That contention has not been now pressed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner since the issue was correctly decided by the courts below. Though the main contention raised by the revision petitioner was that he had handed over signed blank cheque leaves to one Raju, when question was put to PW1 regarding the same, it was stated by him that in fact he had filed a case against Raju as he had cheated by him with regard to another cheque. Therefore, the contention that K.S.Raju was the friend of the complainant cannot be accepted. On going through the evidence given by PW1, I find no inherent improbability in the case put forward Crl.R.P. No.1252 of 2004 -: 3 :- by him. Therefore, the findings entered by the courts below is only to be confirmed. Since all the statutory formalities were duly complied with, the conviction is only to be confirmed. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of as stated below :- The conviction is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, the accused/revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to PW1, the complainant. The accused/revision petitioner will appear before J.F.C.M., Chalakudy on 21.10.2011 to pay/deposit the compensation amount and to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt