IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3010 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.229/2006 OF II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM, CC.NO.482/2002 OF MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------- BHASKARA PILLAI, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, KATTUVEEDU, KOONAYIL CHERRY, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. N.SUREDRAN, SOORAJ NIVAS, KOONAYIL CHERRY, PARAVOOR VILLAGE,KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- prv. P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.R.P. NO. 3010 OF 2009 ------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 O R D E R --------------- The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C No. 482 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Paravoor. The 2nd 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 guilty. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for 3 months with direction to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation to the 2nd respondent. In Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2006, the conviction was confirmed. But the sentence was reduced to imprisonment till raising of the court and a fine of Rs. 70,000/- with a default clause to undergo CRL.R.P. NO. 3010 OF 2009 2 Simple Imprisonment for two months. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition is filed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments of the courts below, I find that the 2nd respondent who was examined as PW1 with the support of Exts.P1 to P6 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to the 2nd respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque drawn on SNVRC Bank, Paravur was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was bounced for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo and that demanding discharge of liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which is marked as CRL.R.P. NO. 3010 OF 2009 3 Ext.P3 dated 5-11-2001 was caused. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice on 7-11-2001 as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. There is no contra evidence. The conviction is based upon cogent evidence. I find no error, irregularity, illegality or impropriety committed by the courts below in arriving a conclusion of guilty. The appellate court is very lenient to reduce the imprisonment to one till raising of the court. If at all erred, it is only towards leniency. The fine imposed is quite appropriate. In the above circumstances I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. However, taking into account that the revision petitioner is aged 60 years, he is granted six months time to pay the fine amount provided he executes a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two solvent CRL.R.P. NO. 3010 OF 2009 4 sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court within 15 days from today. P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE pkk