IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 575 of 2001 --------------------------------- CRA.144/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.8/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: /APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------- GOGO JOHN, PUTHENPURAYIL, AYYAMPUZHA, MUNJAPPARAM, ANGAMALI. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2.KORA MATHEW, KANAKAPPALAM ESTATE, KANAKAPPALAM, ERUMELI. ADV. SRI.T.P.VARGHESE FOR R2 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 575 of 2001-A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was prosecuted by respondent No.2 herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court found him guilty and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. In appeal while confirming the order of conviction, the learned Sessions Judge modified the substantive sentence and reduced it to simple imprisonment for 3 months and further directed the petitioner to pay Rs.35,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The above order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant/respondent No.2 was that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.30, 000/- from him on June 1, 1995. The accused had 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 and the liability was not discharged. Hence the complaint. 3. The complainant was examined as Pw.1 and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on his side. There was no oral and documentary evidence on the side of the defence. The defence set up by the accused was that he had borrowed Rs.5,000/- from one Tomy Vazhakulam and that he had issued a signed blank cheque to the said person. Though the money was repaid, the blank cheque was not returned to him. He further alleged that he said cheque was somehow obtained by the Crl.RP.575/2001. 2 complainant and used for the purpose of launching the present prosecution. The trial court as well as the appellate court disbelieved the above contention. 4. I have been taken through the deposition of Pw.1 and other relevant materials available on record. I do not find any reason to disbelieve Pw.1. The admitted position is that the accused had not disputed his signature in Ext.P1 cheque. His only contention was that he had issued a blank cheque to one Tomy Vazhakulam in connection with another loan transaction. The above contention, which on the face of it is untenable, was rightly rejected by the courts below. Therefore I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction passed by the trial court. 5. However as regards the substantive sentence imposed on the petitioner, I find some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is prepared to remit the amount of compensation of Rs.35,000/- as directed by the appellate court, if some reasonable time is granted. 6. In that view of the matter the substantive sentence of imprisonment for 3 months imposed on the petitioner is set aside. In lieu of the above sentence, petitioner shall undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and remit the sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation, as directed by the court below under Section 357(3) of the Code of Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on January 15, 2009 and remit the amount of compensation. On his appearance the Crl.RP.575/2001. 3 learned Magistrate shall ensure that petitioner undergoes imprisonment till the rising of the court on that day. If the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court and remit the amount of compensation as directed above, the order of sentence passed against him by the appellate court shall come into force. Crl.R.P is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.