IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1768 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.286/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC - I), THODUPUZHA ST.927/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- JOHNSON, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 32 ORAVALAKUDI HOUSE,C/O.MATTAKATTIL BABY GASPADI,CHATTUPARA,MACHIPLAVU PO, MANNAMKNDAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JOY C. PAUL DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA SRI.K.S.ARUNDAS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. MARY JOSEPH, AGED 66 YEARS W/O.JOSEPH, NEDUMPURATHU VEEDU AMBALAPADY, ADIMALY PO,MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON 02/08/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.1768 OF 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011 O R D E R The accused, who was convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I.Act', on such conviction confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, has filed this revision. The trial Magistrate has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh with default term of imprisonment for three months. The learned Sessions Judge in appeal, affirmed the conviction, but, modified the sentence reducing the substantive term of imprisonment to one day till the rising of the court retaining the compensation awarded with default term. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. The accused had set up a defence that the cheque involved, the dishonour of which had led to his prosecution was Crl.R.P.No.1768/2011 2 handed over as a security in respect of a loan transaction which he and another person, one Jiby, had with the complainant. The amount given as loan by the complainant was to be paid by daily instalments at the rate fixed. Though the accused had discharged the loan with interest due as per its terms, the other person namely, Jiby, failed to repay the amount in time as the complainant had demanded more interest. Therefore, the complainant had misused the cheque given by the accused as security and resorted to his prosecution for the offence, was the defence canvassed by the accused. On the materials placed, which consisted of the evidence of the complainant as PW1 and the records produced by her as Exts.P1 to P6, that alone, the learned Magistrate accepted the case of the complainant as trustworthy, and that of the defence, unworthy of any merit. The learned Sessions Judge, after reappraisal of the evidence, found no impropriety in the conclusion formed by the learned Magistrate to hold the accused guilty of the offence and found the conviction against him. Though the learned counsel for the accused raised challenges as to the absence of cogent and convincing evidence to prove the execution of the cheque and Crl.R.P.No.1768/2011 3 the consideration thereof, to assail the conviction concurrently rendered by the two courts, I find such challenges are not available to the accused in the proved facts of the case especially within the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. Statutory notice issued on dishonour was not even responded with a reply, leave alone, there was no material to sustain the defence pleaded by the accused when the case of the complainant is amply proved by the evidence tendered by her, which was rightly taken into account by both the courts below to found a conviction against the accused holding him guilty of the offence. 3. So far as the sentence imposed, sufficient leniency has been extended by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal and that also does not suffer from any infirmity. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.No.1768/2011 4