IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1456 of 2001() ------------------------------ CRA NO.12/2001 OF ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, ALAPPUZHA CC NO.253/99 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, RAMANKARY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- JAGADEESH CHANDRAN, MUNDUCHIRA HOUSE, KIDANGARA. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------- 1. SHAJIMON, PARAPPALLIL IRIPATHIL, VELIYANAD P.O., VELIYANAD. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHAPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1456 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008. ORDER First respondent and counsel remained absent. There was no representation. I heard counsel for revision petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. First respondent filed complaint against revision petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). Courts below found repelling the contention of revision petitioner, that he issued the cheque (Ext.P1) for the discharge of liability. Trial court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and payment of fine of Rs.5,000/-. In appeal, sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for three months. Hence this revision. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for revision petitioner that there is no sufficient evidence to warrant conviction of revision petitioner. Ext.D1 was not properly appreciated by the courts below. First respondent alleged in the complaint and gave evidence as PW1 that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.25,000/- from him and for discharge of that debt, issued the cheque. Contention raised by revision petitioner is that he had no transaction with first respondent, his brother had joined in the kuri run by first respondent and as security, his signed blank cheque was taken. Learned Magistrate found that revision petitioner has no consistent case regarding the execution of the Crl.R.P.No.1456/2001 2 cheque. First respondent has given evidence as PW1 which the courts below have accepted. Merely producing Ext.D1 is not sufficient to rebut the evidence let in by first respondent. I have gone through the evidence. I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings entered by the courts below and conviction of revision petitioner. 4. So far as sentence is concerned, counsel requested for leniency. In the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that simple imprisonment till the rising of court is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. At the same time, first respondent has to be compensated for the loss he suffered. Ext.P1 is dated 13.11.1998. Now, almost ten years have elapsed. Hence, revision petitioner shall pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) as compensation. Revision Petition is allowed in part in the following lines:- (1) Substantive sentence awarded to the revision petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. (2) Revision petitioner is directed to deposit in the trial court for payment to the first respondent as compensation Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) within three months from this day failing which, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Amount if any deposited by revision petitioner in the trial court shall be adjusted in the compensation fixed hereby. Revision petitioner shall surrender in the court below on 6.1.2009 to receive Crl.R.P.No.1456/2001 3 sentence. Bail bond is cancelled. Crl.M.P.No. 6874 of 2001 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.1456/2001 4 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.1456 of 2001 ORDER 3rd October, 2008