IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 6 of 2001(A) --------------------------- CC.465/1997 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD CRA.105/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER:APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- SUNDARA T.BANGERA B., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.THIMMAPPA BANGERA, NEAR MANJESWARA BRIDGE, BANGARAMANJESHWARA, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------- 1. ANANDA SHETTY, S/O.LATE BABU SHETTY, VANANDA HOUSE, P.O.SHIRIYA, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P No.6 of 2001 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent is served, but there is no appearance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is dead and the legal heirs are not interested in prosecuting this petition. 2. I have considered the relevant facts. Conviction is under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Signature in the cheque is admitted. The plea is that it was handed over as security. Complainant had examined himself as PW1. Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. No defence evidence was adduced. I am not persuaded to agree that the verdict of guilty and conviction warrants interference for any reason. The learned Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion that the cheque is issued for the discharge of a legally enforcible debt/liability as claimed by the complainant. Statutory time table has been scrupulously followed and in these Crl.R.P No.6 of 2001 2 circumstances no case for interference is made out going by the contentions in the Crl.R.P. Of course, I am satisfied that the appellate court has not written a detailed judgment and has disposed of the appeal basically for the reason that the appellant was absent and there was no representation. The appellate court must have seen that sitting as an appellate court, the court is bound to pass an order on merits. 3. This Crl.R.P is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-