IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 716 of 2004() ----------------------------- CRA.226/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.13447/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPEL;LANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ MADHAVAN MOOTHAN, S/O.RAMAN KUTTY MOOTHAN, UPPATH HOUSE, KANNIYAPPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT COMPLAINANT AND STATE. ---------------------------------------------- 1. VENNEKKODAN ABU, S/O.KUTTY RAYIN, VATTOLI HOUSE POST, MONGAM, MORAYUR VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (KONDOTTY POLICE STATION LIMIT). 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.716 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 O R D E R This Revision is against the concurrent decision of the courts below, in terms of which, the revision petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In support of the complaint, the first respondent complainant was examined as PW1. He spoke of the debt that was due from the review petitioner to him. It is based on certain transactions in relation to vehicles. The review petitioner produced Ext.D1 and was examined as DW1. Ext.D1 is an agreement dated 20.11.1999 between the complainant and the son of the accused. The courts below have concurrently found on appreciation of the material evidence, including Ext.D1, that in pursuance of that transaction, the amount covered by the cheque was due from the accused to the complainant, even going by that case of the Crl.RP.716/04 Page numbers accused. This has been specifically held so by the court of sessions in appeal in para 10 of the judgment of that court. 2. Having considered the materials on record, I do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. They are not illegal, improper or wrong for any reason. In the result, the revision petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.