IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3308 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.816/2007 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM, CC.NO.417/2005 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- MANOJKUMAR M., SUMA SADANAM HOUSE, P.O.MOOZHIKULANGARA, KURUMALLOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. MR.K.N.PADMAKUMAR, MR.GINESH.P. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.J.GEORGE, KOCHUPUTHENPURACKAL, KAIPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3308 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.417 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kottayam. The first respondent 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 undergo simple imprisonment for three months u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was further directed to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the first respondent u/s.357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days after exhausting the provisions of section 421 Code of Criminal Procedure. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Kottayam, confirmed the conviction. The substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the Crl.R.P.No.3308 of 2009 2 conviction and sentence, as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent, who was examined as P.W.1, supported by Exts.P1 to P8, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 05.07.2004 was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4 dated 8/10/04, was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. Neither any reply. 3. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilt. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court. It requires no interference. Order to pay compensation is quite Crl.R.P.No.3308 of 2009 3 appropriate. I find no error or illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment. Revision petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of compensation. Till then the bond executed by him would be in force. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. skj.