IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 260 of 2002() ------------------------------------------------ CRA.543/2001 of SPL.COURT SPE/CBI-II & IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. CC.1244/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.PAVITHRAN, KALLYATTU HOUSE, TEMPLE GATE, TELLICHERRY. BY ADVS. MR.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, MR.T.K.AJITH KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.A.SUNIL, S/O.M.A.AMBUJAKSHAN, MAILIL HOUSE, RAJAGIRI P.O., KALAMASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS. MR.N.SUBRAMANIAM, MR.M.S.NARAYANAN. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.2042/2002 IN CRRP.NO.260/2002 DISMISSED 20/02/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.260 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th February, 2009 ORDER This revision has been filed by the accused in C.C.No.1244/98 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I.Act') on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent. He was found guilty of the offence and convicted thereunder sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. The appeal preferred by the accused before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam ended in confirming of the conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings confirming the conviction and sentence, this revision has been filed by the accused. 2. Perusing the records of the case, it is seen that the complaint was filed before the court after complying with all the statutory formalities. Notice issued to the accused before filing the complaint intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding the sum due under the instrument was responded by Ext.P6 reply notice in which he practically admitted that he had borrowed some amount from the Crl.R.P.No.260/02 - 2 - complainant and the cheque was handed over to the complainant. True, he had a case that the cheque was issued in blank form with signature alone and also to evidence as security for the loan transaction. During the trial, the accused got himself examined as D.W.1 to advance a defence version that he had already discharged whatever amount borrowed from the complainant, disowning the earlier version given in the reply notice that some amount was still due under the transaction. The accused had no consistent defence and that he was prepared to go, to any extent to save his skin is evident from the conflicting versions given by him as borne out from the records of the case. The learned Magistrate who had the opportunity to watch the demeanour of the witnesses found the case presented by the complainant reliable and convincing and that of the accused totally unworthy of any value. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Magistrate is fully supported by the evidence on record which was rightly and correctly confirmed by the Sessions Court. I do not find any merit in the revision warranting interference with the conviction imposed against the accused. However, with regard to the sentence imposed directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Crl.R.P.No.260/02 - 3 - Section 138 of the N.I.Act, it appears, modification is called for to meet the ends of justice. Sentence is modified directing the accused to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court. Compensation of Rs.15,000/- ordered to be paid by the accused shall be paid within two months from the date of this order, failing which he shall suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The accused is directed to appear and the sureties are directed to cause his production before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam on 4th May, 2009, and the learned Magistrate shall execute the same as indicated above. The Revision is disposed of as above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE