IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3318 of 2004() ------------------------------ CRA.77/2001 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.223/1999 OF JDUL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAMANKARI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- MANOJ A., VALLATTILTHARAYIL, MURALIKA, CHETTIKULANGARA, MAVALIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ASP.KURUP RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. S.RAMAKRISHNAN, THRIKKARTHIKA, VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.J.ANTHAPPAN, KOLLOOR HOUSE, PULINCUNNU. R2 BY ADVS. M/S. G.SUKUMARA MENON & K.SURESH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.R.P. 3318 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2011. O R D E R The first respondent prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ramankari, in C.C. 223 of 2009 alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. Though he preferred Crl.A. 77 of 2001, he was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was preferred. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments impugned, I find that the first respondent, through the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2, supported by Exts. P1 to P7, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the first respondent and issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 11.1.1999 for the said amount drawn on Federal Bank, Kidangara Branch CRL.R.P. 3318/2004 2 and that when sent for collection, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds. Demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4, was caused. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner had not advanced any specific defence. The fact that the revision petitioner remained silent after acknowledging the notice demanding discharge of the liability speak volumes. He has no good defence at all. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and rightly arrived at a conclusion of guilt. The conclusion is based upon cogent evidence. Having taken note that the liability arises out of a business transaction and because of the financial difficulties the revision petitioner has to face the prosecution, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to a little leniency and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of Rs. 2,05,000/-would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of as follows: The conviction under challenge is confirmed. The substantive sentence is modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 2,05,000/- (Two lakhs five thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six CRL.R.P. 3318/2004 3 months. Out of the fine amount, if collected, Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakhs only) shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the compensation amount. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-