IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3094 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.114/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.516/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- -------------------------------------------------------------------- HEMALATHA, W/O.DAS, REVATHI HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHAJI JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, KALLUPURACKAL HOUSE, KOTTAMKULANGARA WARD, AVALOOKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.Gopinathan, J. ========================================== Crl.R.P.3094 of 2009 ========================================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009. ORDER 1.The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.516 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Alappuzha. The second 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 till rising of the court. She was further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-, the cheque amount as compensation, to the second respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the Addl.Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court)-II, CRRP3094/09 -:2:- Alappuzha confirmed the conviction and sentence. The direction to pay compensation was also confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence, this revision petition was filed. 2.Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the second respondent, who was examined as P.W.1, supported by Exts.P1 to P6, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the second respondent and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4, was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner, the liability was not discharged. CRRP3094/09 -:3:- 3.The revision petitioner has got no good defence. I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of guilt. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. The trial court is very lenient in awarding sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court. It requires no modification. The direction to pay compensation is also appropriate. I find no error or illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 4.The revision petitioner is granted six months' time for payment of compensation, provided, she executes a bail bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance. sl. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge.