IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3029 of 2005() ------------------------------ CRA.63/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.628/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- K.M.HASEENA, W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, KIZHAKKAMKUNNATH HOUSE, TIRUR P.O., KHAIMATH HOTEL, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.MOIDEEN, S/O.KUNJIMOIDEEN, CHATHENCHERI HOUSE, VAIRANKOD P.O., TIRUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN FOR R2 SRI.A.KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P. 3029/05 ORDER ON CRL.M. APPLICATION NO. 20142/05 IN CRL. R.P.NO. 3029/05 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE 16.12.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.R.P.No. 3029 OF 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008 ORDER This revision is preferred against the judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 63/2004 of the Sessions Judge, Manjeri. The said appeal was preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirur in C.C. 628/2000. The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to one of imprisonment till the rising of the court and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 60,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. It is against that decision the accused has come up in revision. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that the accused towards the discharge of the liability had issued a cheque of Rs. 50,000/- which when presented for encashment was returned with an endorsement of insufficiency of funds. Thereafter statutory notice was sent which Crl.R.P.No. 3029/2005 -2- was not replied and proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The defence appears to be one of total denial. PW1 is the Power of Attorney holder. PW1 had deposed that he has got personal knowledge about the transaction. It is deposed that a cheque was issued towards discharge of liability. There is a total denial transaction by the accused. A notice was issued, it also was not replied. No other materials are forthcoming to show even the possible defence of the accused where as PW1 who knows about the transaction as spoken about it and proved the documents. Therefore I do not find any perversity or illegality committed by the courts below in convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. So far as the sentence is concerned, I can modify it to one of fine reduce it to Rs. 50,000/- with the default sentence. Therefore the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as follows: 1. The conviction under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is sustained. 2. The revision petitioner is directed to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two Crl.R.P.No. 3029/2005 -3- months. The amount if realised shall be disbursed to the complainant. 3. The revision petitioner shall pay the amount on or before 16.2.2009, failing which the trial court shall execute the sentence. 4. If any amount is deposited it can be treated as a part of the fine and balance need be deposited and the amount so deposited shall be disbursed to the complainant on appropriate application. The Crl. Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm