IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2636 of 2004(D) ------------------------------------------ CRA.148/2000 OF IST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.787/1997 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------- N.RAJU, S/O. NARAYANAN, RAJESH MANDIRAM, KALLUMTHAZHOM P.O., KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. G.VIKRAMAN NAIR, PARIPPALLIL VEEDU, KALLUMTHAZHOM P.O., KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE.J.PUNNACHALIL FOR R2 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No.2636 of 2004 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 30th day of May, 2008 ORDER The revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner is guilty. The evidence of P.W.1 complainant and the documentary evidence Exts.P1 to P7 were considered and relied on by the courts below to overrule the defence version that the accused and P.W.1 had transactions in cashewnuts and a blank cheque was signed and given to P.W.1 as security. In support, the appellate court on analysis of evidence clearly held that the defence version is not available even on preponderance of probabilities in the background of the evidence adduced by P.W.1 supported by the documentary evidence Exts.P1 to P7. 2. Having regard to the nature of the findings, I do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed which is for imprisonment for a day and to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE vns