IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1856 of 2004(B) ------------------------------- CRA.108/2003 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR ST.5593/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT CRL.APPEAL/ACCUSED IN S.T: --------------------------------------------------------- P.D ARUN, MANAGING PARTNER, GOLDEN GREEK FARMERS, PRABHU NIVAS, KANDAKADAVU P.O., KANAVALI, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN APPEAL/COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------------- 1. P. VENKITAKRISHNAN, S/O. PARAMESWARAN, DIVAN CHAMBER, DIVANS ROAD, ERNAKULAM FOR S.S. HACHERIES, KARA, EDAVILANGU. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSOECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2010, THE COURT ON 10/12/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.A.NO. 8534 OF 2004 IN CRL.R.P NO. 1856 OF 2004 DISMISSED 10.12.2010 SD/- M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 1856 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of December, 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No. 5593 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur. The first respondent herein is the complainant in that case, which was filed alleging commission of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. The case of the first respondent/complainant is that the petitioner/accused purchased prawn seeds from the complainant firm and issued a cheque dt.25.3.1998 for Rs.1,44,183/- The said cheque, when presented, was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. The lawyer notice issued on 16.4.1998 was returned unclaimed. Hence the complaint. Crl.R.P.No. 1856 of 2004 2 3. In the Magistrate Court, on the side of the complainant Pw1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. On the defence side, DW1 was examined and Exts. D1 and D2 were marked. The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence, found that the accused has committed the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay an amount of Rs.1.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant in default to undergo S.I. for three months. In appeal filed as Crl.A.No. 108 of 2003 before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Court, Trichur the conviction was confirmed and the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant, in default to undergo S.I. for two months. Against that judgment the accused filed this revision petition. Crl.R.P.No. 1856 of 2004 3 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the first respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner produced photocopy of a bill issued by the complainant showing that only Rs.50,000/- is due from the accused to the complainant in the transaction. But that photocopy of the bill cannot be accepted in evidence due to the fact that when the accused was examined as DW1, he has no case that the bill issued by the complainant is with him and he has stated that he is not maintaining any account showing the amount due to the complainant. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner re- iterated the same contentions raised by the accused before the trial court and the appellate court. 6. The courts below have concurrently held that the cheque in question was drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant, that the complainant had validly complied with Crl.R.P.No. 1856 of 2004 4 clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that the Revision petitioner/accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the statutory notice. Both the courts have considered and rejected the defence set up by the revision petitioner while entering the conviction. The said conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence. I do not find any error, illegality or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below and the same is hereby confirmed. Since the appellate court has imposed only a reasonable sentence, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. 7. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed, as it is without any merit. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm Crl.R.P.No. 1856 of 2004 5