IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3465 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.408/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM ST.148/2006 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR,CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SOORIYA HERBAL EXPORTS,SREEVARAHAM,MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. SUGANA VIJAYA KUMAR,KRISHNALAYAM, MNRA-38,CHENGALOOR,POOJAPPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3465 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- from the first respondent and in discharge of that liability a cheque was issued. When presented for collection it was returned bounced for insufficiency of funds. Though a lawyer notice, demanding discharge of the liability was caused, no payment was made. With these allegations first respondent prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-VI, Thiruvananthapuram in S.T.No.148 of 2006. 2. The revision petitioner pleaded not guilty. Hence he was sent for trial. The first respondent was examined as PW.1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revision petitioner contented that she borrowed only Rs.50,000/- from the husband of the first respondent in the year 2002 and two blank cheques and a promissory note were given as security and that liability was discharged in three monthly instalments. But the cheques and the promissory note were not returned. However he did not adduce any evidence. The lower court on appraisal of the evidence found against the revision petitioner. Consequently, he Crl.R.P.No.3465 of 2009 2 was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and ordered to pay Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Criminal Appeal No.408 of 2007, the conviction was confirmed. The substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. Order to pay compensation was sustained. Now this revision petition. 3. The first respondent took notice. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the first respondent were heard and perused the judgments of the courts below. The first respondent who was examined as PW.1 had succeeded to establish that in April, 2004, the revision petitioner who is a family friend of first respondent borrowed Rs.1,75,000/- and in discharge of the liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 5/8/2004 was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo. Though a notice, demanding discharge of the liability as evidenced by Ext.P3 was caused and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P5 acknowledgment card, the liability was not discharged. The Crl.R.P.No.3465 of 2009 3 revision petitioner had not adduced any evidence to show that the liability was only Rs.50,000/- or that any portion of the liability was discharged or that cheque was issued as security. Such being the materials on record, the evidence of PW.1 remains uncontroverted. I find that the courts below had correctly believed the evidence of PW.1 and arrived a finding of guilty. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction under challenge. 4. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court. If at all erred, it is only towards leniency. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.