IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2908 of 2004(C) ---------------------------------------------- CRA.332/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, N.PARAVUR ST.3462/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, N.PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- SULAIMAN, S/O.HYDROSE, PUTHENKOIKKAL VEEDU, MILLUPADY, KOONAMMAVU P.O., KOTTUVALLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- 1. RAJENDRAN, S/O.RAMAN, KATUPARAMBIL VEEDU, POYYA P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.L.DEVADAS. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2908 of 2004. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, N.Paravur in ST.No.3462/1999 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the first respondent, who prosecuted the revision petitioner before the trial court. In Crl.Appeal No.332/2003, the Addl.Sessions Judge. N.Paravur confirmed the above conviction and sentence. Now, this revision petition. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments of the courts below, I find that the revision petitioner who is a police constable borrowed a sum of Rs.two lakhs and in discharge of the said liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 15-3-1999 was issued and that Crl.R.P.No.2908 of 2004. -: 2 :- when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was returned bounced for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos. Though notices were caused in the office as well as residential addresses of the revision petitioner, it was returned unclaimed and the liability was not discharged. The plea of the revision petitioner is one of total denial and further stated that he had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from his colleague Mohanan, who is none other than the brother-in-law of the first respondent. However, the revision petitioner could not controvert the evidence adduced by the first respondent or to rebut the presumptions under Sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act supporting the evidence of Pw1. In the above circumstance, I find little reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the execution and delivery of Ext.P1 cheque. Hence I find little reason in interfering with the conviction. 3. Taking note that the revision petitioner is a police constable and that an ordinary money transaction had led Crl.R.P.No.2908 of 2004. -: 3 :- him to face the prosecution, I find that he is entitled to a little leniency in sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of Rs.two lakhs would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of Rs.two lakhs. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The revision petitioner is granted two months time to remit the fine. The fine, if any, realized shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation. In the event of any direct payment between the revision petitioner and the first respondent pertaining to the cheque amount that shall be given credit to. P.S.GOPINATHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-