IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3980 of 2009() --------------------------------------------- CRA.543/2008 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.123/2005 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, KRISHNAKOTTAGE, NEAR PANCHARAMUKKU, MURUKKUMPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. K.B.SHINE, TC 21/150, JUDGE ROAD, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.GOPINATHAN,J. ================ Crl.R.P. No. 3980 of 2009 ==================== Dated this the 22th day of December, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-VII, Thiruvananthapuram in S.T.No.123/05 on his file for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/, the cheque amount, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for four months. In Crl.Appeal No.543/08, the II Additional Sessions Judge, Triruvananthapuram while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court along with fine as ordered by the trial court and a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. Now this revision. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgments of the courts below, I find that the 1st respondent through his Power of Attorney, who was examined as PW1, supported by Exts.P1 to P6 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the 1st respondent on 15.10.2004. In Crl.R.P. No. 3980 of 2009 2 discharge of it Ext.P2 cheque dated 15.11.2004 drawn on Federal Bank , Pattam Branch for the said amount was issued and that when presented for collection, Ext.P2 was dishonoured for the reason 'insufficiency of funds' as evidenced by Ext.P3 memo dated 27.11.2004. Though a lawyer notice, a copy of which was marked as Ext.P4 dated 13.12.04, demanding discharge of the liability was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. Neither there is any reply. 3. The revision petitioner, when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, took up a defence that his brother-in-law borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and a blank cheque was issued as security. It is crucial to note that no such defence was put to PW1 during cross examination. The defence advanced when questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains to be a suggestion. There is no reply to the notice demanding discharge of the liability. The silence after acknowledging notice looms large. The failure to put specific defence to PW1 suggests that the revision petitioner had no good defence. No defence evidence was adduced to substantiate the defence plea advanced when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The result is that the evidence of PW1` supported by the presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the Crl.R.P. No. 3980 of 2009 3 Negotiable Instruments Act remains uncontroverted. There is no reason to disbelieve PW1. Courts below concurrently believed PW1 and arrived at a finding of guilty. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of court along with fine. The fine and direction to pay compensation out of fine are quite appropriate. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. The revision petitioner is granted 6 month's time to remit the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE. mns