IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 544 of 2004(C) -------------------------------------------- CRA.128/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.107/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED/APPELLANT --------------------------------------------------------------- PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. RAMAN SANTHI, KALLEMACKAL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.R. BIJU, PROPRIETOR, POTHANICKAL AGENCIES, MALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN. R2 BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.544 of 2004. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010. O R D E R The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam in CC.No.107/2001 on his file convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months with direction to pay Rs.55,000/- as compensation to the second respondent/defacto complainant. Though he preferred Crl.Appeal No.128/2002 he was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was preferred. 2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perusing the judgments impugned, I find that the second respondent who was examined as Pw1 had succeeded to establish that the Crl.RP.No.544/2004. -: 2 :- revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.55,000/- to the second respondent. In discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 4.1.2001 for the said amount drawn on Bank of Baroda, Kottayam branch was issued and that when sent for collection, Ext.P1 was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo and that despite the acknowledgment of notice demanding discharge as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P5, the liability was not discharged. The plea of the revision petitioner is one of total denial. He has no good explanation for issuing the cheque or no case that the cheque was issued not in discharge of the liability. It is pertinent to note that the revision petitioner remained silent after acknowledging notice demanding discharge of liability. The silence of the revision petitioner looms large. I am persuaded to arrive at an inference that the revision petitioner has no good defence and that is why he remained silent after receiving notice. In the above circumstance, I find that the courts Crl.RP.No.544/2004. -: 3 :- below had correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived at a conclusion of guilt. No reason to interfere with the conviction under challenge. 3. Taking into account that financial difficulties led the revision petitioner to face the prosecution, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to leniency in sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.60,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for five months. Out of the fine amount, if realised, Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty-five thousand only) shall be paid to the second respondent as compensation under Sec.357(1) of the Code of Criminal Crl.RP.No.544/2004. -: 4 :- Procedure. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-