IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3004 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.218/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.2941/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- HARIDASAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, ALAMPALLATHIL HOUSE, MARUTHAROAD VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SIVA SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.KARUPPASWAMY KOUNDER, MALAKKATTIL HOUSE, VALIAPALLAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3004 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.2941 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chitttur. The second respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and directed to pay Rs.90,000/-, the cheque amount, as compensation to the 2nd respondent with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In appeal the conviction was confirmed. The sentence of simple imprisonment was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. The direction to pay compensation was sustained. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as reduced in appeal, this Crl.R.P.No.3004 of 2009 2 revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the second respondent through his evidence as PW.1 supported by Exts.P1 to P7 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the second respondent and Ext.P1 cheque dated 18/09/2000 was issued in discharge of the said liability. When Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4 memos. Demanding discharge of the liability, a demand notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P5 was issued. Despite the acknowledgment of notice as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. It is in the above circumstance, the prosecution was launched. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence. Conviction is based on cogent evidence. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence. The substantive sentence is very lenient. Direction to pay compensation is quite appropriate. I find no good reason to Crl.R.P.No.3004 of 2009 3 interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below. 4. In the result this revision petition is dismissed. However the revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of compensation amount on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with 2 solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within 15 days. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj