IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1159 OF 2000() {CR.A.NO.54/99 OF THE IIND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM IN C.C.NO.248/97 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM} REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------- M.K.ASHOKAN, CHARUVILLA VEEDU, THEKKEMURI, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.VIMALAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. BIJUMON, THENGUVILAYIL GLASS HOUSE, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KUNDARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTEED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.1159 of 2000 ------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009. O R D E R The accused in C.C.No.248/97 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kollam, who was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 {for short 'the Act'} is the petitioner herein. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year with a direction to pay Rs.3,000/- as fine. The conviction and sentence having been affirmed by the appellate court, he has come up with this revision. 2. I have perused the records and I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the evidence. 3. The case of the complainant is that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the accused after he borrowed an amount of Rs.35,000/-. The issuance of the cheque is not a matter, which is seriously disputed. In fact, going by Ext.P5 reply notice, the accused has taken up the stand that he received an amount of Rs.3,500/- and had issued a cheque for Rs.3,500/-. He has CRL.R.P.No.1159 of 2000 :: 2 :: expressed his willingness to pay back the said amount with normal interest. Thus, the signature in the cheque as also the issuance of the same is admitted. 4. Ext.P1 cheque is for an amount of Rs.35,000/-, which amount is expressed in figures as well as in words. There is no stand taken in the reply notice that a forgery has been committed as regards the entries made in the cheque. No such suggestion has been made in the cross-examination of PW.1 as well. The stand taken up at the time of examination of PW.1 is that the cheque was issued as a security and not in discharge of a liability. The same was inconsistent with the stand taken up in the reply notice. 5. In my view, the courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence and have come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The conviction of the accused, therefore, does not warrant any interference. 6. But, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year imposed on the accused CRL.R.P.No.1159 of 2000 :: 3 :: seems to be on the higher side. In my view, a sentence of imprisonment for a period of two weeks with a direction to pay compensation will meet the ends of justice. 7. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Act, the sentence imposed on him is altered. The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. The accused is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure within three months from today. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge