IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 513 of 2005() ----------------------------- CC.500/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI CRA.565/2003 of VI ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- T.V.VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, ST.LUKOSE HOSPITAL, CHULLICKAL KOCHI 682005. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- 1. DENA BANK, MATTANCHERRY BRANCH, KOCHI -2, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.N.SIVASANKARAN FOR R1 SRI.SUNIL SHANKER FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. --------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 513 OF 2005 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.500/2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Kochi. In discharge of liability amounting to Rs.38,00,000/- the revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the 1st respondent Bank. When presented for collection, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds. Though a lawyer notice demanding discharge of the liability was caused, no payment was made. With these allegations, the revision petitioner was prosecuted by the 1st respondent. Since the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty, he was sent for trial. On the side of the 1st respondent, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. The revision petitioner didn't advance any specific defence. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived at a finding of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months with direction to pay Rs.39,00,000/- as compensation to the 1st respondent. Though Crl.A.No.565/2003 Crl.R.P.No.513/2005 2 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam the revision petitioner was not successful. Assailing the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Revision Petition was filed. 2. I have heard Adv. N.Sasi appearing for the revision petitioner and Adv.Sunil Sankar appearing for the respondents. The factum of issuance of Ext.P1 cheque, the dishonour of the same, the demand to discharge the liability and the failure to discharge the liability are not disputed. There is no case for the revision petitioner that Ext.P1 cheque was issued for any other purpose. Further, it was submitted from the Bar that for realisation of the amount due as per Ext.P1, the 1st respondent had moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the amount is now fully realised. 3. In the above circumstance, I find no merit in the Revision Petition. The conviction is based upon cogent evidence. Having taken into account that the liability arose out of a loan transaction and that it was now fully discharged, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to much leniency in sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with a Crl.R.P.No.513/2005 3 fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) would meet the ends of justice. 4. In the result, the Revision Petition is disposed of as follows: The conviction under challenge is confirmed. The sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/23/7