IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 749 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.224/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.181/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------- P.G.SATHEESAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOZHUPPA P.O., NALUKULANGARA, KUTHIATHODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (TR) SRI.S.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLANANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------- 1. V.K.BAHULEYAN, PAMIPALLITHARA, ANTHAKARANAHI. P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR SRI.T.P.SAJAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 749 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of December, 2007. ORDER Petitioner was concurrently found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial court and the appellate court. The learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.45,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of two months. It was further directed that if the fine amount was recovered from the accused it shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction and substantive sentence imposed on the petitioner. However the fine was reduced to Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, petitioner was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The above order of the appellate court is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant (respondent No.1) was that the petitioner accused had issued a cheque dated October 31, 1995 for a sum of Rs.45,000/- in discharge of the liability due from the petitioner against purchase of prawns from the complainant. When the cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner. Though a Crl.RP.749/01 2 statutory notice was issued, the petitioner did not pay off the liability. Hence the complaint. 3. Complainant was examined as Pw.1 and a witness was examined as Pw.2. Exts.P1 to P5 were also marked in the case. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. The learned Magistrate, after an elaborate consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, repelled the contention raised by the petitioner/ accused that he had issued the cheque in question as security in connection with the business transaction between him and the complainant. In other words, the contention raised by the petitioner that the cheque was not supported by consideration was dis-believed. The learned Magistrate further noticed that the petitioner had not discharged the burden cast on him under law. 4. Learned Sessions Judge in appeal reconsidered the entire evidence on record and confirmed the order of conviction and substantive sentence imposed on the petitioner. However the learned Sessions Judge took the view that the amount of fine imposed on the petitioner was excessive. Accordingly the sentence was modified as indicated earlier. 5. This revision petition was admitted in July 2001. The Registry noted that notice which was issued to the respondent had not been returned. When the case came up for consideration on December 3, 2007 there was no representation for the petitioner. Therefore the case was posted today. Neither the counsel nor the petitioner is Crl.RP.749/01 3 present. Nevertheless, I have carefully gone through the entire records. I am satisfied that the courts below had considered the rival contentions of the parties elaborately. I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the trial court as well as the appellate court. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.