IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2885 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRA.711/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE. ST.412/2007 of SPECIAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (MARAD CASES), KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GURUSHAKTHI CHITS (P) LTD.'GURUSHAKTHI' NEAR PANNIYANKARA POLICE STATION, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE (REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR A.M.PRASAD (ACCUSED NO.2), S/O.A.M.NARAYANAN. 2. A.M. PPRASAD, S/O.A.M.NARAYANAN, AGED 57 YEARS, 'GURUSHAKTHI' ADHIKARIMANAMAL VEEDU, EAST PANNIYANKARA SREE DURGA DEVI TEMPLE, NEAR PANNIYANKARA, POLICE STATION, KALLAI P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MALLIKA P.I., W/O.RAMADASAN, LAKSHMI NIVAS, NEAR GANDHI ASHRAM, CIVIL STATION P.O.,KOZHIKODE-673 020. 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 15/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2885 of 2009. = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioners are accused in ST.No.412/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Marad Cases), Kozhikode. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioners alleging offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After due trial the learned Magistrate arrived a finding of guilty. Consequently the revision petitioners were convicted and the first revision petitioner was sentenced to a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The second revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and directed to pay a sum of Rs.47,500/- to the first respondent as compensation under Sec.357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code with usual default clause. 2. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode confirmed the conviction and the sentence as against the first revision petitioner. The substantive sentence as against the second revision petitioner was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.47,500/- with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The fine amount, in Crl.R.P.No.2885 of 2009. -: 2 :- the event of realization, was ordered to be paid as compensation to the first respondent. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and perused the impugned judgment. 4. It is seen by the evidence of the first respondent as Pw1 that the revision petitioners issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 29.9.2006 for Rs.47,500/- in discharge of the liability which the revision petitioners owed to the first respondent out of a kuri transaction. When Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was bounced for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo and Ext.P3 intimation dated 9.1.2007 and 10.1.2007 respectively. Demanding discharge of the liability a lawyer notice, copy of which was produced and marked as Ext.P4 was issued. Though the revision petitioners acknowledged the notice, liability was not discharged. Hence the first respondent was justified in launching the prosecution. The evidence of Pw1 supported by Exts.P1 to P6 and the legal presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains unimpeached. In the above circumstance, I find that the concurrent findings of conviction arrived at by Crl.R.P.No.2885 of 2009. -: 3 :- the courts below is in no way vitiated by any illegality, error or impropriety. The sentence awarded is also just and reasonable. In the above circumstance, I find no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, the first revision petitioner is granted one month's time for payment of fine and the second revision petitioner is granted five months' time for paying compensation provided, they execute bail bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court within three weeks. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-