IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3887 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA. NO.758/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.617/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------- RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, U.D.21, IRRIGATION QUARTERS, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.K.P.BALAGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. MOOSA P., S/O.KUNHI BAVA, AGED 42 YEARS, ANAKUZHIKKADU, NEAR KAVITHA THEATRE, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.Gopinathan, J. ========================================== Crl.R.P.3887 of 2009 ========================================== Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009. ORDER 1.As against the concurrent finding of conviction and fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, this revision petition was filed. 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 P.W.1, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- and in discharge of the liability, a cheque dated 5.12.2006 for the said amount drawn on Malampuzha Service Co-operative Bank, which was marked as Ext.P1, was issued to the first respondent. When it was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos dated 22.12.2006. Demanding CRRP3887/09 -:2:- discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice dated 20.1.2007, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4, was caused. Despite the acknowledgement of notice, as evidenced by Ext.P6 dated 22.1.2007, the liability was not discharged. Neither there is any reply to the notice. 2.The revision petitioner took up a defence of total denial. No evidence was let in. The evidence of P.W.1 is supported by Ext.P1 and the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that it was drawn for valuable consideration and delivered in discharge of the liability. The evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged. There is no case for the revision petitioner that there is no liability or that the cheque was not issued by him or that the liability was discharged. Hence, I find that the conviction under challenge is based upon cogent evidence and there is no reason to interfere with CRRP3887/09 -:3:- it. 3.The trial court was very lenient in confining the sentence to a fine of Rs.50,000/-, which is the cheque amount. The sentence was correctly confirmed by the trial court. There is no reason to interfere with it. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months’ time to remit the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. sl.