IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 422 of 2002 ----------------------------- CRA.137/2000 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1016/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- M.C.RADHAKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, WESTERN TYRE RETRADING COMPANY, MANGALATH HOUSE, DOOR NO.32/1047, PIPELINE CROSS ROAD,PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. P.J.SEBY, PROPRIETOR, NATIONAL TRADERS, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE(THOPPIL) FOR R2 SRI.BAIJU JOHN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P No.422 of 2002 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused is the revision petitioner. After the appellate modification of the sentence, he faced a sentence of S.I for a period of 2 months and to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I for a further period of two months. 2. When this revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel, who was formerly appearing for the revision petitioner, submitted that the revision petitioner is no more. That is accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent. The short question is whether the revision petition would abate. My attention is drawn to the decision in K.M.Chacko v. Jayaprakash [2009(3) KHC 67], in which it is stated that the revision petition will not abate. There is no challenge against the dictum in that decision. 3. Accepting the decision, the burden is on this Court, notwithstanding the fact that the legal heirs of the deceased revision petitioner have not come on record, to consider the Crl.R.P No.422 of 2002 2 challenge on merits and dispose of the revision petition, I requested the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, who was earlier appearing, as also the learned counsel for the respondent to apprise this Court of the nature and merits of the challenge raised. The short question raised is that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability, but only as security. I find that the courts below have considered this question in the proper perspective and have come to the conclusion that the cheque was issued for the due discharge of a legally enforcible debt/liability. In the absence of challenge by the legal representatives of the deceased revision petitioner, I am not persuaded to agree that it is necessary to delve deeper into the challenge raised in the revision petition. Suffice it to say that I do not find any merit in the contention that the cheque is not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability. No other contention arises in the nature of the contentions raised in this revision petition. 4. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-