IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2084 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.438/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.561/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ M.T.JOHNSON, MANNILPEDEKEYIL, PALAVADI JUNCTION, MUKKUZHI, MALAYALAPUZHA ERAM PO PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON SMT.LOVELY SAMSON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS GEORGE, MELETH HOUSE, PUTHUKULAM NOW RESIDING AT KALAPURACKAL HOUSE ST.VINCENT COLONY, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.2084 of 2008 =================== Dated: 25.06.2008 O R D E R In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner, who was the accused in C.C. No.561 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M-IV, Kozhikode for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the said offence. 2. The case arouse out of a private complaint instituted by the 1st respondent herein can be summarised as follows: The complainant and accused were friends and neighbours. During the first week of April, 2002, when the complainant went to his house at Mukkuzhi, the accused approached the complainant and requested for a loan of Rs.73,000/-. The complainant told him that he has to arrange the money and asked him to come to Calicut after one week. On 16.4.02, the accused went to the residence of the complainant and borrowed Rs.73,000/- by promising to pay the amount after one month. Crl.R.P.No.2084/2008 -:2:- On the very same day he issued a post-dated cheque bearing date 15.5.02 for the said amount. The representation made by the accused was that the cheque would be honoured on presentation on or after 15.2.07. Accordingly, the complainant presented the cheque for payment on 17.5.02, but the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds and also on the ground that the drawer's signature differs from specimen given. By putting a different signature in the cheque the accused had cheated the complainant. The accused deceived the complainant by fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant to part with the amount and issued the cheque by deliberately putting his signature differently. The accused has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and under Section 420 IPC. 3. Eventhough the learned Magistrate initially took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC, subsequently, a charge was framed under Section 420 IPC only. 4. The learned Magistrate after trial, as per judgment dated 30.04.2007 found the revision petitioner guilty of the Crl.R.P.No.2084/2008 -:3:- offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. The fine amount was directed to be paid to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode as Crl.Appeal No.438 of 2007, the lower appellate court as per judgment dated 23.5.08 dismissed the appeal. Hence, this Revision. 5. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner, in as much as the conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, there is no scope for interference by this Court sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction. Both the courts below have given very valid reasons as to why PW1's evidence is incredible. The testimony of his wife examined as PW2 was also found to be acceptable to both the courts. Under these circumstances, the conviction recorded against the petitioner is confirmed. Crl.R.P.No.2084/2008 -:4:- 6. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The lower appellate court has modified the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to PW1 with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. Having regard to the fact that the sum of Rs.73,000/- was borrowed in April 2002, I see no reason to hold that the aforesaid sentence imposed on the revision petitioner by the lower appellate court is harsh or improper or disproportionately excessive. The said sentence is accordingly confirmed. The petitioner is given six months' time from today to pay the compensation amount to PW1 or to deposit the same before the trial court. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 25 th day of June, 2008. V.Ramkumar, Judge. sj Crl.R.P.No.2084/2008 -:5:-