IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 779 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.911/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,FAST TRACK (ADHOC-II), KOZHIKODE ST.1087/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------- T.T. SIVANANDAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O THEYYATHIRA, RESIDING AT NELLUVAYALIL HOUSE, P.O. MOORIKKARA, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.VINEETH RESPONDENT(S)COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------- 1. C.SYAMLAL, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT CHEROTT HOUSE, B.G. ROAD, P.O. WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRIMINAL.R.P. NO. 779 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode in Crl.A.911/07. The revision petitioner was the accused in a 138 case filed as S.T.1087/05 and the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. In appeal it was confirmed and it is against that decision the present revision is preferred by the accused. 2. Heard the learned counsel. Perused the judgment. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- and in discharge of the same had issued a cheque which when presented for encashment returned with endorsement insufficiency of funds. Thereafter statutory compliances necessary were done and on failure to pay the amount prosecution was initiated. The defence of Cr.R.P. 779 OF 2009 -:2:- the revision petitioner appears to be that in 2004 he had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- and had also handed over a blank signed cheque which had been utilized by the complainant for filing this case. The evidence of PW1 and DW1 were analysed by the Court below. The Court found that the evidence of PW1 is convincing and nothing has been brought out in cross-examination. So far as PW1 is concerned the Court below found that he was not aware of any transaction of the year 2005 and he does not identify Ext.P1 as a cheque issued in 2004. So the rebuttal evidence was unsatisfactory and from the materials available and the presumptions under the provisions of the N.I. Act the Court found that the revision petitioner has committed the offence u/s 138 of the N.I.Act and therefore convicted him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding on conviction u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. Cr.R.P. 779 OF 2009 -:3:- 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner I feel leniency can be shown and as per the amended N.I.Act twice the amount can be levied as fine under the provisions of the Act. Therefore the Criminal Revision is disposed of as follows. (1) The finding on conviction u/s 138 of the N.I. Act is upheld. (2) The conviction and sentence are modified and the revision petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks. (3) The revision petitioner shall appear before the trial court for payment of fine on 22.4.2009. The Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-