IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.R.P. No. 2459 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRA.221/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT III), TRIVANDRUM ST.378/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER : APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------- D. ANANTHA KRISHNAN, ATTENDER, CENTRAL ACCOUNTS, S.B.T., ANANTHAVILASOM PALACE, KOTTAKKAKOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY. BY ADVS. SRI. M. SREEKUMAR SRI. M. HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. S.ESAKKI, TC 41/361, PAVITHRA NAGAR, II STREET, HOUSE NO.6, KURIYATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2459 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused/revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.58,100/- from the complainant and subsequently the accused towards the discharge of the said liability, issued a cheque dated 31.3.2001 for the said amount, which when presented for encashment dishonoured, as there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and the cheque amount was not repaid inspite of a formal demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. With the said allegation, the complainant approached the Judl. First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, by filing a formal Crl. R.P.No.2459 of 2010 2 complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted S.T.No.378/02. During the trial of the case, PW1, the complainant himself was examined from the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. No evidence either oral or documentary adduced from the side of the defence. On the basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner/accused for the purpose of discharging his debt due to the complainant. Thus accordingly the court found that, the complainant has established the case against the accused/ revision petitioner and consequently found that the accused is guilty and thus convicted him u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 day ie., till the rising of the court and also directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.58,100/- to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C., failing which the revision petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Crl. R.P.No.2459 of 2010 3 3. Though an appeal was filed, at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused, by judgment dated 2.6.2010 in Crl.A.221/06, the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the trial court. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts below. 5. Reiterating the stand taken by the accused/revision petitioner during the trial and appeal, submitted that the complainant has not established the transaction and also the execution and issuance of the cheque. But no case is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. Therefore, I find no merit in the revision petition and accordingly the conviction recorded by the courts below against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is approved. Crl. R.P.No.2459 of 2010 4 6. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, some breathing time may be granted to pay the compensation amount and he also further submitted that the compensation amount may not be enhanced further. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can not be considered as the cheque in question pertained to the year 2001. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the courts below, with respect to the sentence also. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner by the courts below and the direction to pay the compensation amount is also confirmed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/