IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3145 of 2009() ------------------------------ [ CRA.192/2006 of 2006 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF SESSIONS,THALASSERY STC.4913/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TALIPARAMBA] .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- CHERUKKUNNONDAKATH MOHAMMED ALI@ALIKUTTY S/O.MALIKKAN MUHAMMEDKUNHI HAJI, K.P.C.HOUSE,BADARI,TALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. K.ABDUL KHADER HAJI,S/O.ASSAN, AGED 58 YEARS,INDONESIA HOUSE, BADARIYA NAGAR,TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------- CRL. R.P. NO. 3145 OF 2009 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.C No. 4913 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thaliparamba. He was prosecuted by the 1st respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilty. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of six month with a direction to pay Rs. 2,75,000/- as compensation to the first respondent. In default of payment of compensation, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. 2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl. Appeal No. 192 of 2006 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 28-2-2009 confirmed the conviction, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one till rising of the court. Order to pay compensation was confirmed with default clause. CRL. R.P. NO. 3145 OF 2009 2 3. The legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal is now assailed in this revision petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent who was examined as PW1 with the support of Exts.P1 to P6 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- to the 1st respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 15-5-2003 was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo dated 30-7-2003 and that demanding discharge of liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which is marked as Ext.P3 dated 16-8-2003 was caused. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice as evidence by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner had taken a defence that there was dealings in between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent, and that two blank cheques were entrusted to the 1st respondent and that the dealing were settled . But, misusing the cheque, the prosecution was launched. But no evidence was CRL. R.P. NO. 3145 OF 2009 3 let in support of that plea. The result is that there is no contra evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve PW1. The conviction is based upon cogent evidence. I find no error, irregularity, illegality or impropriety committed by the courts below in arriving a conclusion of guilty. 5. The appellate court is very lenient to reduce the imprisonment to one till rising of the court and to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 2,75,000/-. If at all erred, it is only towards leniency. In the above circumstances I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. However, taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner is facing acute financial difficulty, he is granted six months time to pay the compensation amount provided he executes a bond for Rs.20,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court within one month. P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE. PKK CRL. R.P. NO. 3145 OF 2009 4