IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 496 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.479/1998 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.419/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT IN CRA.NO.479/98 --------------------- SIVAN, S/O THANKAPPAN ANANDAMANTHIRATHIL KAIPPATTOOR, ARAKUNNAM BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------- 1. SAJITHA SOMAN, W/O SOMASUNDARAM THACHANKUZHIYIL EDAKKATTUVAYAL, ARAKUNNAM 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.SUNU P.JOHN FOR R1 SRI.P.K.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.496 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.419/1997 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and appellant in Crl.Appeal No.479/1998 of First Addl. Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The revision petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months by the trial court. On appeal, the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction and upheld the substantive sentence imposed, but reduced the fine amount to Rs. 5,000/-. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. The case of the 1st respondent/complainant, as testified by PW1 before the trial court and as detailed in the complaint, was that the revision petitioner/accused borrowed Rs.15,000/- from her and to CRRP.No.496/2001 discharge that liability, the accused issued cheque Ext.P1, which when presented for collection was returned dishonoured for want of sufficiency of funds in the account of the accused in the bank and that in spite of the notice Ext.P4 dated December 16, 1996, the accused did not repay the amount, which is an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court on receipt of the complaint recorded the sworn statement of the complainant PW1 and took cognizance of the case. Accused on appearance before the trial court pleaded not guilty to a charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.C1 extract of the account of the accused was also marked. When questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. by the trial court, the accused denied the entire transaction. Ext.D1 reply notice sent by him was marked on his side. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him as aforesaid. On appeal by the accused, CRRP.No.496/2001 the Sessions Court confirmed his conviction and substantive sentence imposed, but modified the sentence of fine to Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Now the accused has come up in revision challenging his conviction and sentence. When the revision petition came up for hearing today, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties for Rs. 13,000/-. In the light of the above submission, I confirm the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but modify the sentence to the effect that he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 13,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. One month's time is granted for payment of fine. His bail bonds are cancelled. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. CRRP.No.496/2001