IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2329 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.21/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.1515/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- KUNHIPATHUMMA, W/O. MUTHIRAKOLIYAN KUNHALI, VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, MULLIYAKURSHI AMSOM, DESOM PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PATTIKKAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED KUTTY, S/O. KUNHAMMU, POOZHITHARA HOUSE, PERUMANNA AMSOM, PURATHUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1 SMT.P.MAYA FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VENUGOPAL M.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.R.P. 2329 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. 1515 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thirur. She was prosecuted by the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial, revision petitioner was found guilty. Consequently, she was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one week and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Though she preferred Crl.A. 21 of 2002 before the Sessions Judge, Manjeri, she was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Going by the judgments of the courts below as well as the documents and hearing the arguments of the counsel, I find that the first respondent, who was examined as PW.1, supported by Exts.P1 to P5 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs. 91,260/- to the first respondent and in discharge of the liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 14.2.1997 drawn on the Pattikkad Service Co-operative Bank Limited was issued. When presented for collection, it was returned CRL.R.P. 2329/2003 2 dishonoured for insufficient funds along with Ext.P2 memo. Demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 was caused. Despite acknowledgment of notice as evidenced by Ext.P4, the liability was not discharged. In turn, the revision petitioner caused Ext.P5 reply stating that Ext.P1 was got executed under threat and coercion. In support of that defence, the son of the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner were examined as DWs 1 and 2. They were disbelieved by the courts below. The courts below noted that the specific defence of the revision petitioner is that at the knifepoint Ext.P1 was got executed. But there is no complaint to the police. In the event Ext.P1 was got executed under threat and coercion, there was no difficulty for the revision petitioner to issue a stop memo to the Bank. But the revision petitioner did not choose to do so. The courts below had taken note of the above conduct of the revision petitioner in disbelieving DWs 1 and 2. It is a good reasoning. It is not perverse. Sitting in revision I find no material to interfere with that reasoning. The evidence of PW.1 is supported by the presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The courts below concurrently arrived at a finding that the revision petitioner did not succeed to rebut the legal presumptions in favour of the first respondent. In the above circumstances, I find no error, illegality or CRL.R.P. 2329/2003 3 impropriety committed by the courts below in appreciating the evidence. The conviction under challenge is based on cogent evidence. Having taken notice that the revision petitioner is a house wife and that financial difficulties have led her to face a prosecution, I think she is entitled to some leniency in sentence and a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of Rs. 90,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only). In default of payment of fine, revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The fine amount, if collected, shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation. The revision petitioner is granted one month’s time to remit the fine amount. P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-