IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3182 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRA.156/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DTD. 31.03.09 ST.134/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30.01.07 .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VENUGOPAL.D., T.C.5/2298, SOWPARNIKA, KADPPATHATU NAGAR, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. V.SASIDHARAN NAIR, T.C.19/1956, SREEBHAVAN, MUDAVANMUGHAL, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3182 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009. O R D E R 1. The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.134/2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. The 1st respondent prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after due trial, arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. He was further directed to pay Rs.25,000/-, the cheque amount as compensation, to the 1st respondent under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month. In Criminal Appeal No.156/2007, the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track II, Thiruvananthapuram confirmed the conviction. But the substantive sentence was reduced to Crl.R.P.No.3182 of 2009. 2 imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the 1st respondent, who was examined as PW1, supported by Exts. P1 to P6, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the 1st respondent and in discharge of that liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 30.11.2000 was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of fund, as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4, was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. There is no contra evidence. The revision petitioner has taken defence that his transaction was with one Ramesan and the cheque given to Crl.R.P.No.3182 of 2009. 3 him was misused. But, in support of such plea no evidence was let in. The result is that the evidence of PW1 remains uncontroverted. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilt. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence. If at all erred, it is towards leniency only. The direction to pay compensation is also appropriate. Sentence is no way excessive. I find no error or illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 3. The revision petitioner is granted six months' time for payment of compensation, provided, he executes a bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each of like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. shg/