IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1428 of 2002 CRA.16/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.935/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS I, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: V.S. SUNNYMON, VATTAPPILLIL HOUSE, KILIROORKARA, THIRUVARPPU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: 1. DAMODARAN, SARPPAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KUMARAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR SRI.JINU JOSEPH SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON 07/02/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.No.1428 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of February 2008 ORDER This revision petition is at the instance of the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial court found him guilty of the above offence and convicted and sentenced him thereunder to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. In appeal, the Sessions court confirmed the above order of conviction and sentence. Hence this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.23,000/- on August 21, 1996. Accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque drawn on the Service Co-operative Bank, Tiruvarpu on the same day in discharge of the above debt. But when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Though a statutory notice was issued by the complainant demanding payment, the accused had not bothered to send a reply to the same nor had he repaid the Crl.R.No.1428 OF 2002 :: 2 :: debt. It was in the above circumstances that the complainant had prosecuted the petitioner. 3. Before the trial court, the complainant had got himself examined as PW1 and his witness was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P7 were marked on his side. DW1 was examined on the side of the accused. 4. The defence set up by the accused was that he had not borrowed any money from the complainant. But according to him, he had handed over a blank signed cheque to one Vellappally Sukumaran as security for the sum of Rs.5,000/- received by him for providing a job to the latter's son as a driver in the bus belonging to him. DW1 who was working in the bus of the accused had deposed before the court that he along with the accused had gone to the house of Mr.Vellappally Sukumaran’s son (Mr.Nobi) to collect the amount of Rs.5,000/- from him. According to DW1, the accused had handed over a signed blank cheque to Sukumaran at that time. The accused contended that the said blank was misused by the complainant. The trial court did not Crl.R.No.1428 OF 2002 :: 3 :: choose to believe the version given by DW1. On the contrary, the learned Magistrate found that the evidence of the complainant and his witness PW2, was totally credit worthy and reliable. More importantly, the accused had admitted his signature in Ext.P1 cheque. He had not adduced any evidence to show how the complainant had managed to get hold of the cheque in question from Sukumaran as alleged by the accused. In short, the learned Magistrate found the evidence adduced by the complainant was entirely credit worthy. The learned Sessions Judge had re-evaluated the entire evidence on record and found that the finding entered by the learned Magistrate was legally sustainable. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent/complainant, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent finding entered by the courts below. I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the order of conviction is confirmed. However, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the sentence imposed on the petitioner is liable Crl.R.No.1428 OF 2002 :: 4 :: to be modified and reduced. Therefore, in modification of the sentence imposed on the petitioner, he is directed to suffer imprisonment for one day and he shall pay a sum of Rs.26,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on March 3, 2008. On his appearance, the learned Magistrate shall ensure that the petitioner undergoes imprisonment till the rising of the court on that day. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of compensation, he shall suffer the sentence imposed by the appellate court. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes