IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3268 of 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRA.346/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA ST.373/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): /APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- JOSHY N.N., S/O. DEVAYANI, NELLIKKUNNEL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM P.O., KALIYAR POLICE STATION. BY ADV. MR.N.K.SHYJU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- M/S.MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD., THODUPUZHA BRANCH, REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER, IE, SHIBU JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, VETTANAL HOUSE, KARIMPANA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3268 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the accused in ST.No.373/2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muttom, Thodupuzha. The 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 guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. He was further directed to pay Rs.1,22,000/- as compensation, to the respondent. In appeal, the Addl.Sessions Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Thodupuzha confirmed the conviction. The substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment for one month. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this Crl.R.P.No.3268 of 2009. -: 2 :- revision petition was filed. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments impugned, I find that the respondent, through the evidence of Pw1, supported by Exts.P1 to P9, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner availed a loan of Rs.1,10,000/- from the respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.1,21,589/- was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was returned 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, the liability was not discharged. There is no contra evidence. The revision petitioner has advanced a defence that the cheque was issued blank as a security for hire purchase of a car. But no evidence was let in support of that plea. It is pertinent to note that there was no reply to the notice demanding Crl.R.P.No.3268 of 2009. -: 3 :- discharge of the liability. That silence looms large. The evidence of Pw1 remains uncontroverted. There is no reason to disbelieve Pw1. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilty. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. 3. Taking into account that the revision petitioner is an agriculturist and that financial difficulties led the revision petitioner to face the prosecution, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to leniency in awarding sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court with direction to pay Rs.1,22,000/- as compensation to the respondent would meet the ends of justice. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction under challenge is confirmed. The substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court with compensation of Rs.1,22,000/-. In default of payment of compensation, the revision petitioner shall Crl.R.P.No.3268 of 2009. -: 4 :- undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-