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. 2997 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA.122/2008 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.1153/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- K.MANIKANTAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, 7/103, KOPPAM, NEAR PVS CLINIC, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------ 1. P.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.P.U.SWAMY, 'ARATHY', VENKITESAPURAM, PUTHUR, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = == = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2997 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in ST.No.1153/2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Palakkad. 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 one month. He was further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In appeal, the Addl.Sessions Judge-I, Palakkad confirmed the conviction. The sentence was reduced to fine of Rs.41,000/-, out of which, if realised, Crl.R.P.No.2997 of 2009. -: 2 :- Rs.40,000/- was ordered to be paid to the first respondent as compensation under Sec.357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 judgments impugned, I find that the first respondent, who was examined as Pw1, supported by Exts.P1 to P5, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when Ext.P1was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. There is no contra evidence. The revision petitioner has got Crl.R.P.No.2997 of 2009. -: 3 :- no good defence. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilty. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence to fine only. Sentence is neither harsh nor disproportionate. 3. In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed. 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 for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-