IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3411 of 2003(C) ------------------------------- CRA.236/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.221/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NILAMBUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- SAJAN SEBASTIAN, PROPRIETOR, MARBLE WORLD, VADAKKARAMUKKU, KANHANGAD POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. JOHNSON MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. CLASSIC MARBLES, EDAKKARA, EDAKKARA VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK,] KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.V. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/201,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 3411 of 2003 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of August, 2011. ORDER This revision petition is filed by the accused against the concurrent conviction passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur for the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs. 2,91,554/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The cheque in question was for Rs. 2,91,554/- which was stated to be the price of the marbles purchased by the accused from the 1st revision petitioner/complainant. As the cheque was bounced on presentment, statutory notice was issued to the accused but the amount was not paid and hence the complaint was filed. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P10 were marked. On the side of the defence Ext.D1 to D2 were marked. The learned Magistrate after analysing the evidence found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced Crl. R.P. No. 3411 of 2003 2 as mentioned above. Learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitoner would submit that there is no legal evidence to hold that Ext.P1 was issued in discharge of the liability as stated by the complainant. The learned counsel would further submit that no accounts or other records were produced by the complainant to show that the amount as stated by the complainant was due from the accused. Though, it was contended by the complainant that the amount was due from the accused as per the bill purchased for various marble products there is no convincing evidence to accept that contention. 3. It is seen that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence given by PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10 in detail. Ext.D1 and D2 will in no way affect the case of the complainant. The accused could not rebut the presumption Crl. R.P. No. 3411 of 2003 3 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence the finding that Ext.P1 was issued by the accused in discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability is only to be confirmed. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the sentence may be modified. It is also submitted that the information, learned counsel received, is that the accused has undergone the jail sentence. Therefore no purpose would be served by reducing the sentence of imprisonment. Since the compensation awarded is Rs.2,91,554/- which represented the amount covered by the bill, no reduction can be made regarding the compensation payable. Since the default sentence awarded by the court is only simple imprisonment for one month, I find no reason to reduce the default sentence as well. As such this revision petition is failed and the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE smvd