IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3001 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.907/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK III (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.656/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- HARIDAS, S/O. KUMARAN, PERIMPILLY HOUSE, ALAPPAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE OF KERALA ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. PUSHPANGATHAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THRIPARAYAR, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PRSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3001 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.656 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur. The first respondent herein 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 a period of one year and directed to pay Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation to the first respondent U/s.357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (inclusive of Rs.15,000/-paid during trial) with default sentence of simple imprisonment for 3 months . In appeal, the substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment for one day till rising of the court and directed to pay a sum of Rs.95,000/- (excluding payment of Rs.15,000/-) as compensation. In default, the revision petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. Crl.R.P.No.3001 of 2009 2 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as reduced in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent through his evidence as PW1 supported by Exts.P1 to P6 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first respondent and Ext.P1 cheque dated 19/05/2006 was issued in discharge of the said liability and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2, memo and Ext.P3 intimation. Demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4 was issued. Despite the acknowledgment of notice as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. It is in the above circumstance, the prosecution was launched. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts Crl.R.P.No.3001 of 2009 3 below. There is no error, impropriety or illegality to be rectified in exercise of revisional powers. 4. In the result this revision petition is dismissed. However the revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of compensation amount on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with 2 solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj