IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1457 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.20/2006 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-II(ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA CC.352/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ SASIDHARAN @ SAJI, KAVINEDATHU HOUSE, THADIYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. PHILIPOSE MATHAI, ATTATHARAYIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 1457 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008. ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 352 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta. It was a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of a cheque for Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner was convicted by both the courts and the trial court imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- being the cheque amount as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C with a default sentence as well. The lower appellate court while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for one month and converting the compensation to one of fine and directing the fine amount to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant. 3. In the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent, the CRL.R.P. NO. 1457/2008 : 2: accused is shown as Saji T.K., Kavinedathu House, Thadiyoor P.O. The cheque in question is drawn on account No. 2982 of Thiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank at Thadiyoor. The contention of the revision petitioner throughout the trial was that he does not hold any account in that bank and that he does not run any bakery by name St. George Bakery as is shown in the ledger extract produced as Ext.D1. The Manager of the drawee bank was examined as DW1 and Ext.D1 certified copy of the ledger extract was marked through him. The said document shows that account No. 2982 of the said bank is standing in the name of K.T. Saji, St. George Bakery, Thadiyoor. There was no evidence adduced before the court by the complainant to show that K.T. Saji of St. George Bakery, Thadiyoor who is the holder of account No. 2982, is the same person as Saji T.K shown as the accused in the complaint. Both the courts recorded the conviction against the revision petitioner on the ground that the revision petitioner when examined as DW2, confessed that he is also known as Saji. The failure on the part of the revision petitioner to send any reply to the statutory notice was also CRL.R.P. NO. 1457/2008 : 3: relied on. The courts below also concluded that the signature occurring in Ext.P1 cheque resembles the admitted signature of the revision petitioner. The conclusion as has been drawn by the courts below on the above circumstances could not have been reached when the fact remains that the account holder is one K.T. Saji, St. George Bakery, Thadiyoor whereas the revision who is shown as the accused in the complaint is T.K. Saji of Kavinedathu House, Thadiyoor P.O. In the absence of any reliable material to show that Saji T.K.,Kavinedathu House, Thadiyoor P.O shown as the accused in the private complaint is the same person as K.T. Saji, St. George Bakery, Thadiyoor P.O who is the account holder in respect of the account in question, no conviction could have been recorded against the revision petitioner. No doubt, even though the revision petitioner has a case that his name is Sasidharan @ Saji, he received the summons issued to T.K. Saji of Kavinedathu House, Thadiyoor P.O. Faced with this, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant made a fervent request for remanding the case to the trial court so as to give him an opportunity to CRL.R.P. NO. 1457/2008 : 4: establish the fact that the revision petitioner is the very same person who is the holder of the account No. 2982 of the drawee bank. 4. The result of the foregoing decision is that the conviction recorded by the courts below cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for disposal afresh after giving both sides an opportunity to adduce such further evidence which they may deem fit. The parties shall appear before the trial court without any further notice on 13.08.2008. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 1457/2008 : 5: