IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1274 of 2002() ------------------------------ CRA.167/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.1398/1998 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------- THOMAS CHACKO, S/O. CHACKO, AGED 39 YEARS, FLAT NO.E-3, P.R.S.COURT, AMBUJAVILASOM ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT THONDELI VILLA, NOOROMMAVU, ANIKKADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY S.ASHARAF,ADVOCATE, SURABHI,CHITHIRA LANE,VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS-COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BINU RAJ, PLOT NO.61, INDIRA NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.1274 of 2002 ========================== Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was concurrently found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial court as well as the appellate court. The trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was further directed that Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the fine amount was realised. The above order of conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Sessions court in appeal. Hence, this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated September 26, 2000, in discharge of the above debt. The cheque was dishonoured, when it was presented for encashment, due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The statutory demand notice issued by the complainant did not evoke any response. In fact the notice sent by the C.R.R.P.No.1274/2002 2 complainant was refused to be accepted by the accused and returned by the postal department as “unclaimed”. 3. The complainant got himself examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on his side. Dws.1 to 3 were examined and Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the accused. 4. The defence case set up by the accused was that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from Sri.Sajikumar,(DW1) and executed a promissory note. At that time he had handed over ten blank signed cheques to DW1. It was further contended by the accused that Sri.Sajikumar had in turn borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and handed over ten blank signed cheques to the latter. The accused claimed that Ext.D1 was the promissory note executed by him in favour of DW1. DWs.2 and 3 were stated to be witnesses to the execution of Ext.D1 Promissory Note. The Courts below did not accept the above defence set up by the accused. It was the admitted position that Ext.P1 cheque contained the signature of the accused. He had not disputed the same. Though the accused had examined three witnesses he never bothered to step into the witness box. The courts below had considered the oral and C.R.R.P.No.1274/2002 3 documentary evidence adduced by both sides quite meticulously and elaborately. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the entire materials available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction and sentence. It may be noticed that petitioner has been directed to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- only with a default sentence. In any view of the matter it cannot be said that the sentence imposed on the petitioner is high or exorbitant. The learned sessions judge had further directed that the money if any, that had been recovered by the complainant, in execution of the decree, obtained by him on the basis of the same cheque, would be adjusted towards the liability in this case. The revision petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs