IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2927 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRA.52/2006 of 1ST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.1081/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------- P.P. MOHANAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN ACHARRY, PATHAZHEPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVANCHIPURAM POST, METHALA, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN MR.RAVI K.PARIYARATH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE OF KERALA: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LOVE FIN, BEACH ROAD, MANATHALA AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MOHANAN, S/O.MANDAKATHINKAL KUNHIKKELAN, MANNATHALA, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RITHWIK. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2927 of 2009. = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in CC.No.1081/1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilty. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.80,000/- with usual default clause. In appeal, the first Addl.Sessions Judge, Thrissur confirmed the conviction and sentence. Assailing the correctness, legality and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal this revision petition was filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the impugned judgment. I find that Crl.R.P.No.2927 of 2009. -: 2 :- the first respondent through the evidence of Pw1 supported by Exts.P1 to P16 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.75,924/- from the first respondent and in discharge of said liability Ext.P9 cheque dated 13.5.1999 was issued and that when Ext.P9 was sent for collection it was bounced for insufficiency of funds and returned with Ext.P10 memo dated 14.5.1999. Demanding discharge of liability a lawyer notice, copy of which is marked as Ext.P11 dated 19.5.1999 was caused. Despite the acceptance of the notice as evidenced by Ext.P13 acknowledgment card, the liability was not discharged. The plea of the revision petitioner was that Ext.P9 was issued as a security. The courts below had duly considered the contention and rejected the defence version. The signature in Ext.P9 was admitted. Once the execution is admitted, it follows presumption under Sec.118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that Ext.P9 was drawn for valuable consideration and issued in discharge of the liability. In sum and substance, the evidence of Pw1 is also Crl.R.P.No.2927 of 2009. -: 3 :- to that effect. The revision petitioner couldn't impeach the veracity of the evidence of Pw1. So, there is nothing wrong in giving reliance to the testimony of Pw1. Going through the judgment impugned and the arguments advanced, I find no error, illegality or impropriety in the judgment impugned. The conviction under challenge is based upon the evidence of Pw1 supported by Exts.P1 to P16. I find that the conviction and sentence under challenge are unassailable. 3. Having regard to the fact that the transaction occurred in respect of dealing of a vehicle and that the vehicle was transferred with the concurrence of the first respondent, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to a little leniency in sentencing and that a substantive sentence of imprisonment for till rising of the court would meet the ends of justice. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the substantive sentence is reduced to till rising of the court. The direction Crl.R.P.No.2927 of 2009. -: 4 :- to pay compensation is sustained. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation provided he executes a bail bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. In default of payment of compensation, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-