IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1694 of 2002 -------------------------------------- CRA.136/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.182/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- V.V.JAYAN, VAZHINADAKKAL VEEDU, P.O.KIZHAKKUMMURI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MITHRAN, S/O.PERINGADAN DHARAMARATHNAM, VADAKKUMURI VILLAGE - DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1694 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of April 2008 ORDER Petitioner was concurrently found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act both by the trial court as well as the appellate court. He now stands sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said debt. But when the cheque was presented for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The statutory demand notice did not evoke any response. 3. The complainant examined himself as PW1. PW2 and 3 were also examined on his side and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. The accused was examined as DW1 and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on his side. 4. The courts below found that the complainant had established his case satisfactorily. I do not propose to deal with the merit of the contentions raised by the petitioner at this stage, Crl.R.P.No.1694 OF 2002 :: 2 :: since Miss.Maya learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has been settled between the parties. The complainant could not be served with notice in this case so far since he is reportedly abroad. But Miss.Maya submits that the wife of the complainant Mrs.Sageena had received the cheque amount from the petitioner as instructed by her husband. She had issued a receipt in this regard acknowledging receipt of the money on March 17, 2003. The receipt bears the signature of Mrs.Sageena. Her counsel in the lower court had attested her signature recording that he knew her personally. It is further seen stated by Mrs.Sageena that her husband has no further grievance in the matter and the claim pertaining to the cheque had been settled. The number of this revision petition is also mentioned in the receipt. In the above facts, the order of conviction and sentence is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. The receipt marked as Ext.X shall form part of the record. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.R.P.No.1694 OF 2002 :: 3 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.1694 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 9th April 2008