IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1055 of 2001() ------------------------------ CRA.117/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------- NARAYANAN NAIR, KANAKAKUNNINMAL HOUSE, AVITANALLUR P.O., (VIA) NADUVANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1055 OF 2001 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ The revision petitioner was found guilty by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class-I, Perambra for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as 'NI Act') and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. He was further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. to the defacto complainant. Though he preferred Crl.A.No.117/2000 before the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, he was not successful. Now this Revision Petition, assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the evidence, I find that the 1st respondent who was examined as PW1 had succeeded to establish that on 15.1.1997 the revision petitioner borrowed a Crl.R.P.No.1055/2001 2 sum of Rs.47,500/- from the 1st respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 20.6.1997 drawn on Kottoor Service Co-operative Bank was issued. When presented for collection, Ext.P1 was dishonoured for insufficient fund and returned along with Ext.P2 memo. 1st respondent caused a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice as evidenced by Ext.P4, the revision petitioner didn't discharge the liability. The revision petitioner has no good explanation as to how the 1st respondent obtained his cheque. The revision petitioner has not succeeded to rebut the legal presumption in favour of the 1st respondent that Ext.P1 was drawn for valuable consideration and issued in discharge of the liability. 3. In the above circumstance, I find that the conviction impugned is based upon cogent evidence and requires no interference. The revision petitioner is reported to have no avocation and steady income. The amount covered by Ext.P1 was said to have been borrowed for the construction of the house. In the above circumstance, I find that the sentence impugned requires a Crl.R.P.No.1055/2001 3 modification and that the imprisonment till the rising of the court with the fine and compensation as ordered by the trial court and confirmed in appeal would meet the ends of justice. 4. In the result the revision petition is disposed of as follows: The conviction impugned is confirmed. The substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The sentence imposing fine and order to pay compensation are confirmed. If any amount is already paid by the revision petitioner, that shall be given credit to. The revision petitioner is granted two months time to remit the fine and the compensation. Till then the bail bond shall remain in force. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/11/7