IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2921 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.506/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.367/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- AJITHKUMAR, RESIDING AT 'SREEHARI', VADIKAVU, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/NOT PARTY ------------------------------------------------ 1. VINAYACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT AMBIKASADANAM, KOTTAMKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2921 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner was prosecuted by the first respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. After due trial he was found guilty. Consequently he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) as compensation under section 357(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. In default to pay compensation, he had to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuzha confirmed the conviction and sentence. Assailing the legality,correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence which was confirmed in appeal this revision petition was filed. 3. I heard the learned counsel and perused the judgments impugned. Having gone through the judgments Crl.R.P.No.2921 of 2009 2 impugned I find that the first respondent herein, who was examined as Pw1 before the trial court supported by the testimony of Pw2 coupled with Exts.P1 to P6 had succeeded to establish that the Revision Petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) to first respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 6/3/2006 was issued and when it was sent for collection it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and returned with Exts.P2 and P3 memos. 4. Demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4 was issued. Despite the acknowledgment of the lawyer notice as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. Hence the first respondent was justified in launching the prosecution. The court below had correctly appreciated the evidence. In fact the revision petitioner who is a government employee has got no defence. I find no good reason to interfere with the conviction which was concurrently found against him. However having taking into account that the revision petitioner is almost in the verge of retirement I find that as regards the substantive sentence he is entitled to a little Crl.R.P.No.2921 of 2009 3 leniency and that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court would meet the ends of justice. 5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction the substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. Fine imposed is sustained. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of the fine amount provided he executes a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within one month. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE ssn