IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 14 of 2004(B) ----------------------------- CRA.176/02 OF III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I) THRISSUR S.T.3136/99 OF Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, THRISSUR REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------- T.C. BABU, S/O. THEKKOOTTU CHANDRAN, THEKKOOTTU HOUSE, THESSERY, VATTEKKADU, P.O. KANAKAMALA, KODAKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------- 1. CHIYYARAM KURIES AND LOANS PRIVATE LTD., CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GEORGE S/O. PAVU, PALIYEKKARA HOUSE, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.14 OF 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated 3rd August, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner, the accused in S.T.3136/1999 was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and compensation of Rs.21,500/- for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur on a complaint filed by the first respondent. Though petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions court, Thrissur in Crl.A.176/2002, learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. CRRP 14/04 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. Though learned counsel argued that courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and first respondent did not establish that Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of any debt or liability, on going through the evidence, I find no reason to interfere with the factual finding of the courts below that Ext.P2 cheque was issued towards discharge of the liability. Fact that Ext.P2 cheque was issued in the account maintained by the petitioner in Kadakkara Branch of Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with the statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act are CRRP 14/04 3 not disputed. Though petitioner contended that Ext.P2 cheque was one among blank cheques issued by him as security, no evidence was adduced and evidence of PW1 establishes that Ext.P2 cheque was issued in discharge of liability of Rs.21,431/- in the kuri transaction. In such circumstances conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal and warrants no interference. 4. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Cheque is for Rs.21,431/- and was issued on 10/4/1997. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met, if sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and adequate compensation to first respondent. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction CRRP 14/04 4 of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation of Rs.25,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month. If the petitioner has deposited any amount before the Magistrate as directed by this court, he need only deposit the balance amount. Petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur on 11/8/2010. Judicial First Class Magistrate is directed to execute the sentence. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, UDGE. uj.