IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH APRIL 2011 / 6TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1144 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.233/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA ST.99/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S) / APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- SABU SEBASTIAN,AGED 35 YEARS, KALLEPLACKAL(H),VAZHAKKULAM.P.O,VAZHAKKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA,NOW RESIDING AT ANGAMALY, C/O.SHIJI SABU,W/O.SABU SEBASTIAN,THEKKEDATHU HOUSE,ANGAMALY.P.O,ANGADIKADAVU. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN SMT.BHAMA G. NAIR SRI.V.K.MEETHIANKUNJU RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE COMPANY(P) LTD,356,ARCOT ROAD,KODAMBAKKOM,CHENNAI-600024, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,MR.A.V.SANTHOSH, S/O.VIJAYABHANU,ASST.MANAGER(BUSINESS), THODUPUZHA BRANCH. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No. 1144 OF 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of April, 2011 ORDER Assailing the concurrent finding of guilty, conviction and sentence for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.99 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thodupuzha, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard either side, I find that the 1st respondent, the de facto complainant has succeeded to establish that Ext.P6 cheque dated 29.9.2007 was executed for due consideration and that when presented for collection it was dishonoured for insufficient funds as evident from Exts.P7 and P8 and that despite registered notice demanding discharge, the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner has no explanation as to how the cheque in dispute was obtained by the de facto complainant. There is no good explanation for non- discharge of the liability. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding with regard to the issuance of the cheque and dishonour of the same for want of sufficient Crl.R.P.No. 1144 OF 2011 2 funds and failure to discharge the liability despite acknowledgement of notice. There is no merit in the revision petition. 3. In the above circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed . The revision petitioner is granted six months time to remit the compensation amount. Till then, the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. The amount, if any, already deposited, shall be given credit to. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dmb