IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2978 of 2009() -------------------------------------------- CRA.62/2008 of IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ST.1859/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- GOPAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, JAYAMANDIRAM, MANGADA POST, PROPRIETOR, M/S.G.M.ELECTRICALS AND HARDWARES, KANDACHIRA, CHIRAYIL JUNCTION, KILIKALLUR. BY ADV.MR.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------- 1. CHLOROPLAST, AKANAD KARA, KOOVAPADY POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SALES MANAGER THOMAS K.A., KAKKATTUPALLIYIL HOUSE, KURIANADU POST, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2978 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in ST.No.1859/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Perumbavoor. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After due trial, the learned Magistrate arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month with direction to pay Rs.10,268/- as compensation to the first respondent under Sec.357(3) Criminal Procedure Code. 2. In appeal, the conviction was confirmed. The substantive sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for 15 days. The order to pay compensation was confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the Crl.R.P.No.2978 of 2009. -: 2 :- above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard either side and perusing the judgments of the courts below, I find that the first respondent who was examined as Pw1 supported by Exts.P1 to P9 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.10,268/- to the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability Ext.P2 series, one cheque for Rs.5,268/- and another for Rs.5,000/- were issued and that when Ext.P2 series cheques were sent for collection, those were returned bounced for insufficient funds as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4 series of memos. Though the first respondent caused a lawyer notice, copy of which is marked as Ext.P5 demanding discharge of liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence, I find that the conviction entered into by the courts below is based upon Crl.R.P.No.2978 of 2009. -: 3 :- supporting evidence and requires no interference. 4. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner was a business man and because of the failure in his business he has to face the prosecution and that the revision petitioner would pay the compensation amount. Taking note of the above circumstance, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to leniency in sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court would meet the ends of justice. The order to pay compensation to the first respondent with default clause is confirmed. The revision petitioner is granted two months time for payment of the compensation. Till payment of compensation, the bond executed by him would remain in force. The lower court see the execution of sentence after the period granted and report compliance. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-