IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 651 of 2001() --------------------------------------- CRA.548/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.4/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ ACCUSED -------------------------------- P.K.SATHEESAN, PROPRIETOR, METRO FURNACE, PERUMPILLIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR P.O. PUTHENCRUZ. BY ADV. MR.T.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE -------------------------- 1. T.MURUGAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN NADAR, MANICHERI VEEDU, VADAYMPADY P.O., AIKKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. MR.T.KURIAKOSE PETER FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON Crl.MP. NO.3109/2001 IN Crl.RP. NO. 651/2001 Dismissed 20.03.2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.651 of 2001 ----------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision is filed by the accused against the concurrent verdict of guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short the NI Act. The trial court on his conviction sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a direction to pay fine, if realised, as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sessions Judge in appeal upholding the conviction modified the sentence directing him to suffer imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay compensation of an amount of Rs.14,000/-, with default term of simple imprisonment for two months. Out of the compensation so imposed, Rs.12,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant. Questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the conviction, concurrently held by both Crl.R.P.No.651 of 2001 2 the courts below and sentence as indicated, this revision is filed. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. Perusing the records of the case, I find that the complainant had complied with all statutory formalities for launching the prosecution against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Though the accused denied the offence imputed, no defence was canvassed to sustain his plea of not guilty. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Exts.P1 to P6 as documentary evidence to prove his case. The learned magistrate who had recorded evidence of the complainant found his testimony convincing and creditworthy. After appreciating the materials tendered in the case, the learned Magistrate concluded that the accused is guilty of the offence imputed. The finding entered by the learned Magistrate on those aspects stand approved by the Sessions Judge in the appeal. I do not find any circumstance whatsoever to interfere with the finding so arrived by the Crl.R.P.No.651 of 2001 3 two courts below. Having regard to the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction wherein re-appreciation of the evidence is permissible only if it is shown that the finding entered is perverse on the materials produced, it is needless to say there is no scope for interference in the present revision, with respect to the finding found by the inferior courts leading to the conviction of the accused for the offence with which he was convicted. Prosecution was initiated in 1998 that too in respect of a cheque on its dishonour for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Till date, it is reported that no sum under the cheque had been paid by the accused despite suffering conviction concurrently before the two courts. The accused is directed to pay compensation of Rs.14,000/- with default term of imprisonment for two months, and the entire sum, if realised, shall be paid to the complainant. Sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge till rising of the court is not altered. The accused is directed to pay compensation within two months from the date of this order. Accused shall appear and his sureties Crl.R.P.No.651 of 2001 4 shall produce him before the Judicial First Class magistrate, Kolenchery on 1.6.2009 and the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence as directed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-