IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 3781 OF 2010() -------------------------------------------- CRA.3/2010 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA CC.17/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, MAVELIKARA. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ K. CHELLAPPAN, PADELETHU CHANDRA BHAVANAM, KANDIYOOR, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR, SMT.A.SALINI LAL. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR. G., GOKULAM, UMBERNADU, MAVELIKKARA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. MR.SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. 3781 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. O R D E R Revision petitioner was found guilty by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class - III, Mavelikkara, for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) in C.C. 17 of 2009. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs. 52,000/- as compensation to the second respondent who prosecuted the revision petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner took up the matter in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2010. The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikkara, by judgment dated 18.8.2010, while confirming the conviction, reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The order to pay compensation was sustained. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition was preferred. 3. I have heard Ms. A. Salini Lal, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. She took me through the judgments of the courts below CRL.R.P. 3781/2010 2 as well as the evidence on record. Having heard the learned counsel and perusing the judgments of the courts below, I find that the second respondent who was examined as PW.1, supported by Exts.P1 to P6, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the second respondent and in discharge of the liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 7.3.2009 drawn on State Bank of Travancore, Mavelikkara Branch was issued and when sent for collection through Dhanalakshmi Bank, Mavelikkara Branch, Ext.P1 was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo. Demanding discharge of the liability, a notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 was caused. After acknowledging the notice, the revision petitioner caused Ext.P6 reply stating that the second respondent, who was employed along with the revision petitioner in BSNL, some how or other managed to get a signed cheque belonging to the revision petitioner and making material alterations, the same was presented for collection. The second respondent withstood the searching cross examination. No material was disclosed to disbelieve him. His evidence is supported by the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. The revision petitioner did not care to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumptions in favour of the second respondent. Other than the vague suggestion that somehow or other the first CRL.R.P. 3781/2010 3 respondent obtained the signed cheque of the revision petitioner and presented for collection after material alteration, there is no evidence to support the defence plea. The result is that there is no reason to disbelieve PW.1. The courts below had rightly believed the second respondent and found the revision petitioner guilty. The lower appellate authority was very lenient in reducing the substantive sentence to one till the rising of the court. The order to pay compensation is quite appropriate. I do not find any reason to interfere with the sentence also. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay on proper acknowledgment or deposit the compensation amount. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-