IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 471 of 2001 ----------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------ BLESSEN MEGOR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, AYYOMKOLIL VEEDU, KALLOORKKADU P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAMDAS, S/O.N.RAJAN, KARUKAPPILLIL VEEDU, RAMAMANGALAM KARA, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. C.M. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.471 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of April 2008 ORDER Petitioner who has been concurrently found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, both by the trial court and the appellate court, has preferred this revision petition. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. It was directed that Rs.4,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation, if the fine amount was realized. 2. In appeal, the Sessions court modified and reduced the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court. Petitioner was however directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code. In default of payment, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It was further directed that on realisation of the amount, Rs.11,000/- be paid to the complainant Crl.R.P.No.471 OF 2001 :: 2 :: as compensation. 3. The case of the complainant before the trial court was that the accused had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said debt. The cheque was dishonoured when it was presented for encashment. The statutory demand notice issued by the complainant did not evoke any response from the accused. Hence the complaint. 4. PW1 and 2 were examined on the side of the complainant. Exts.P1 to P9 were also marked on his side. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. 5. The case of the accused was that he was not Blessan George as shown in the complaint, but was Blessan Megor. Significantly, the accused admitted that Ext.P1 cheque was drawn on his account in the Bank and that the signature contained therein was that of his. The trial court as well as the appellate court had very elaborately dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner/accused. Both the courts concurrently found that the complainant had satisfactorily established his case. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having Crl.R.P.No.471 OF 2001 :: 3 :: perused the materials available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the courts below. The sentence imposed on the petitioner is also very moderate and reasonable. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes