IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1317 of 2001() ------------------------------ CRA.97/2000 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.58/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... CRL.REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- JACOB.O.P., PROPRIETOR, CITY STYLE TAILORING, THYKKOODAM, VYTTILA, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.NATARAJAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. VITHAYATHIL SALES CORPORATION, 37/4108. 1ST FLOOR, PORT OFFICE LINK ROAD, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER V.K.ANTONY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.1317 of 2001 ========================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is at the instance of the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has been concurrently found guilty both by the trial court as well as the Appellate court and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had issued Ext.P2 cheque for Rs.24,500/- on October 28, 1995 in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. But the cheque was dishonoured when it was presented for encashment. The statutory demand notice did not evoke any response. Hence the complaint. 3. The defence set up by the accused was that he had issued only a blank cheque as security. But as rightly noticed by the courts below, the accused had failed to substantiate the above contention. The trial court as well as the appellate court on careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on C.R.R.P.No.1317/2001 2 record found the petitioner guilty of the offence alleged against him. I have carefully perused the lower court records. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below. More over, when this revision petition came up for consideration on June 21,2002 petitioner was directed to pay process to issue notice to the respondent. The petitioner has not taken any steps in this regard so far. On that ground also the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. I do so. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs