IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2240 of 2004() ------------------------------ CRA.130/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR CC.646/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/4TH ACCUSED. ------------------------------------------- V.SURESH, S/O.VAYKUNDAN, USHA MANDIRAM, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, MAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT AND STATE. ------------------------------------- 1. TECHNO TRADING CORPORATION, 2ND FLOOR, EDATHOTTIL ESTATE, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, KOCHI, EP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER RAKESH.R. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ FOR R1 SMT.NITHYA.K. FOR R1 SMT.MANJUSHA MOHANDAS FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, B. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 2240 OF 2004 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ The revision petitioner is the 4th accused in C.C.No.646/1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Aluva. The 1st respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner along with three others alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 1st accused was a partnership firm of which accused Nos.2 to 4 were the partners. The prosecution is based upon Ext.P1 cheque executed by 3rd and 4th accused on behalf of the firm. The revision petitioner took up a plea that he had not signed Ext.P1. During the trial, on the side of the 1st respondent PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. On the defence side, one witness was examined as DW1 and Ext.D1 was marked. The case against the 1st accused was split up. After the trial, the revision petitioner was found guilty. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. Though he preferred Crl.A.No.130/2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge, North Crl.R.P.No.2240/2004 2 Paravur, he was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Revision Petition was filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.N.Rajani appearing for the 1st respondent and perused the records. Going by the evidence on record, I find that the 1st respondent through the evidence of PW1 supported by Exts.P1 to P12 had succeeded to establish that on behalf of the partnership firm, the revision petitioner along with one of the partners executed Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of a liability amounting to Rs.56,557.82/- and that when Ext.P1 was presented for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos. A notice demanding discharge of liability was caused to the revision petitioner. It was returned unclaimed. There was no discharge of the liability. The defence plea that Ext.P1 was not signed by the revision petitioner was correctly disbelieved by the courts below. I find no reason to interfere with the finding of facts by the courts below. There is no error, illegality or Crl.R.P.No.2240/2004 3 impropriety to be rectified in exercise of the revisional powers. The conviction under challenge is based upon cogent evidence and requires no interference. 3. Having due regard to the fact that the liability arose out of a business transaction in the name of a firm and that the revision petitioner being only one of the partner, I find that he is entitled to a little leniency in sentence and that the 1st respondent is to be duly compensated. Therefore, the sentence impugned requires interference. Having due regard to the facts and circumstance of the case, I find that sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) would meet the ends of justice. 4. In the result, the Revision Petition is disposed of as follows: The conviction under challenge is confirmed. The sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple Crl.R.P.No.2240/2004 4 imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine amount, if collected, Rs.56,000/- (Rupees Fifty six thousand only) shall be paid to the 1st respondent as compensation. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/20/7