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. 388 of 2002() ----------------------------- CRA.401/1999 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.356/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.A.AHMAD KALEEMULLAH,WEAVES AND WAVES 40/489,M.G.ROAD,COCHIN-11 BY ADV. SRI.C.SANKUNNY RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------- 1. M/S.MAYFAIR KNITTING INDUSTRIES LIMITED ARCHITECT'S CHAMBER, 39/3590, OFF.M.G.ROAD, RAVIPURAM,COCHIN-16 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN FOR R1 SRI.M.B.ANISH BABU SMT.VINITHA PRASANNAN SMT.V.RENJU SMT.RAGAM.K.P. 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.No. 388 OF 2002 --------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.356/1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-I, Kochi. The 1st respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act'). The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. After trial, the learned Magistrate arrived at a finding of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.6,000/-. Though he preferred Crl.A.No.401/99 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam he was not successful. Assailing the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this Revision Petition was preferred. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perusing the judgments impugned, I find that the 1st respondent through the evidence of PW1 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Crl.R.P.No.388/2002 2 Rs.6,000/- on 22.10.1996. In discharge of the said liability, he issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 20.10.1996. When presented for collection, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds. Despite the acknowledgment of the lawyer notice demanding discharge of the liability as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner has no good defence at all. The revision petitioner had not succeeded to rebut the presumptions in favour of the 1st respondent that Ext.P2 was drawn for valuable consideration and issued in discharge of the liability. In the above circumstance, I find that the trial court had correctly appraised the evidence and arrived a conclusion of guilt. The conviction under challenge is based upon cogent evidence and requires no interference. 3. Having regard to the fact that the revision petitioner is a businessman and that the liability was incurred during the course of the business, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to a little leniency in sentence and that sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Crl.R.P.No.388/2002 3 4. In the result the revision petition is disposed of as follows: The conviction impugned is confirmed. The sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine amount, if collected, Rs.6,000/- shall be paid to the 1st respondent as compensation. The revision petitioner is given one month's time to remit the compensation. Till then the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/11/7