IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3070 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.644/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM, ST.NO.2041/2006 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------- P.K.EMMANUEL, S/O.KURIAKOSE, AGED 37 YEARS, MARIA CONSULTANCY, NEAR KURAVILANGADU POLICE STATION, KURAVILANGADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, MR.T.K.BIJU. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.V.VIKRAMAN NAIR, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, PARIPPU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. == = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3070 of 2009. = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in ST.No.2041/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kottayam. The first respondent prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after due trial, arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. He was further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In appeal, the Sessions Judge, Kottayam confirmed the conviction and sentence. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.3070 of 2009. -: 2 :- 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent, who was examined as Pw1, supported by Exts.P1 to P8, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of that liability Exts.P1 and P2 cheques each for Rs.50,000/- dated 31.3.2006 and 31.1.2006 respectively were issued and that when Exts.P1 and P2 were sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4 memos. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P5, was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P7, the liability was not discharged. There is no contra evidence. The revision petitioner has got no good defence. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilty. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. Taking note that an ordinary money transaction coupled with the Crl.R.P.No.3070 of 2009. -: 3 :- poverty led the revision petitioner to face the prosecution, I find that he is entitled to leniency in sentence and that sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.one lakh would meet the ends of justice. 3. In the result, the revision petitioner is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of rupees one lakh with default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. The fine amount, if realised shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation under Sec.357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner is granted six months' time for payment of compensation, provided, he executes a bail bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-