IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3215 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRA.480/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), PALAKKAD ST.1906/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,OTTAPPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ACCUSED ------------------------------ VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, KAIMPANAKKAL, KANNIYAMPURAM AMSOM DESOM OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------- 1. RAJESH, KIZHAKKEKKARA VEEDU CHUNANGAD AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. == = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3215 of 2009. = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in ST.No.1906/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ottapalam. 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 simple imprisonment for three months. He was further directed to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation, to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. In appeal, the Addl.Sessions Judge, (Adhoc-I), Palakkad confirmed the conviction and the sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation. Crl.R.P.No.3215 of 2009. -: 2 :- Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above 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 Pw1, supported by Exts.P1 to P4, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.400,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 18.3.2002 for Rs.40,000/- was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Exts.P2 memo. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3, was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner, the liability was not discharged. There is no contra evidence. The revision petitioner has taken a defence that she borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the sister-in-law Geetha and a blank Crl.R.P.No.3215 of 2009. -: 3 :- cheque was given as security and that the said liability was discharged and misusing that cheque, the prosecution was launched, no supporting evidence was let in. It was brought in evidence that a civil suit filed by the first respondent was settled. That being the relationship between the parties, if the defence is true, this case also would have been settled. There is no material brought out to impeach the veracity of the testimony of Pw1. The evidence of Pw1 remains uncontroverted. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilty. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. 3. The sentence as modified in appeal is very lenient. There is no scope for further leniency. Sentence also requires no intervention. Revision petition is without any merit. 4. In the result, the revision petitioner is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months' time for payment of compensation, provided, he executes a bail bond Crl.R.P.No.3215 of 2009. -: 4 :- for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-