IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3069 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA.199/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.481/2005 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, NEYYATTINKARA. ((OLD ST.739/2005)) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- AYYAPPAN, S/O.PONNAYYAN, KATTUKULATHINKARA VEEDU, THOTTAVELIKKARA, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.MR.D.KISHORE SMT.MEERA GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------- 1. ASOKAN, S/O.DENNISON, AAYIRAMTHY VEEDU, KACHAMPAZHINJI, POOVAR P.O., THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3069 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in CC.No.481/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-V, Neyyattinkara. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after due trial, arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for nine months. He was further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In appeal, the Addl.Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Thiruvananthapuram confirmed the conviction. The substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. Assailing the legality, correctness and Crl.R.P.No.3069 of 2009. -: 2 :- propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments impugned, I find that the first respondent, who was examined as Pw1, supported by Exts.P1 to P6, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4 was caused demanding discharge of the liability, it was refused unclaimed by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6. Neither, the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner has taken a defence that he borrowed only Rs.10,000/- and it was discharged. But, no supporting evidence was let in. The result is that the evidence of Pw1 supported by Ext.P1 and the presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of the Crl.R.P.No.3069 of 2009. -: 3 :- Negotiable Instruments Act remains uncontroverted. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilty. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the substantive sentence. If at all erred in sentencing, it is only towards leniency. The direction to pay compensation is appropriate. No modification is required. 3. In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition, accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months’ time for payment of compensation, provided he executes a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-