IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1649 of 2006(A) ---------------------------------------- CRA.69/2002 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.784/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------------------------- G.RAJU, S/O.GEEVARGHESE, VAZHAVILA KADAYIL VEEDU, NEERAYIKKODU JUNCTION, AYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED SRI.C.K.PRASAD SRI.VIKANTH K.PUTHUMANA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.P.JOHN, S/O.M.K.PHILIP, GREENVIEW BUNGLOW, ANAKKULAM P.O. CHANNAPPETTA, ANCHAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN - R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN - R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1649 of 2006(A) ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.4581 OF 2006 IN CRL.R.P.NO.1649 OF 2006 DISMISSED 13.11.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL. R.P.No. 1649 OF 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2008 ORDER This Revision Petition is preferred against the judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 69/2002 of the Sessions Judge, Kollam. The said appeal was preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Punalur in C.C. No. 784/98. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the Appellate Court modified the sentence of imprisonment to six months and directed the revision petitioner to pay fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is against that decision the revision has been preferred. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the accused towards the discharge of the liability had issued a cheque which when presented for encashment returned with an endorsement of insufficiency of funds. The statutory notice was issued and the complaint has been filed thereafter. The defence is to the effect that the revision petitioner had given a blank cheque as security Crl. R.P.No. 1649/2006 -2- towards price of the rubber and he had discharged the same and therefore the initiation of prosecution under under Section 138 is not correct. In the Trial Court PW1 and DW1 were examined and P1 to P7 were marked. PW1 had spoken in tune with the complainant. He had spoken about the transaction of issuance of cheque, presentation for encashment as well as the dishonour and the Bank Manager has also proved that the cheque was issued from the account of the revision petitioner. It is contended that a blank cheque is given as security. Admittedly there has been transaction between the accused and the complainant. If really the cheque had been given as blank signed one and the amount has been discharged necessarily one would expect some action to be initiated or at least a reply to be sent when a notice is received in this. Nothing is done in this case. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that though in figures the word used is shown as 1,50,000/- in words it is written as One hundred and fifty thousand only. It means One hundred and fifty thousand i.e. Rs. 150 thousand. So I do not find any mistake therein also. Both the courts below have weighed the evidence and had arrived at a decision that PW1 has succeeded in proving the Crl. R.P.No. 1649/2006 -3- execution of the cheque as well as that it is issued for the discharge of the liability. There is no rebuttal evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and hence found the accused guilty under section 138 of the N.I.Act. I do not find any perversity, illegality or irregularity in this case which calls for any interference. Therefore the finding of conviction under Section 138 is sustained. So far as sentence is concerned, the Trial Court has convicted the revision petitioner to undergo S.I for one year and the appellate court had modified it to six months and compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 357(3) of Criminal Procedure Code. I am inclined to modify the sentence by reducing the sentence of imprisonment for a period of one day and pay a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 357(3) of Crl.P.C, which on realisation to be paid to the complainant. In the result, Criminal Revision Petition disposed of as follows: 1. Conviction under Section 138 is sustained. 2. The sentence is modified and the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one day that is till the rising of the Court and pay a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- which on Crl. R.P.No. 1649/2006 -4- realisation shall be disbursed to the complainant and in default of payment of fine revision petitioner shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. 3. The revision petitioner shall present himself before the Trial Court to receive the sentence and pay the fine on 12.2.2009, failing which the trial court shall execute the sentence. The Crl. Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm