IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2552 of 2004(D) ------------------------------- CRA.523/2003 of IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.84/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- RAVEENDRAN, CHEMVALATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., KAYANADU. BY ADV. SRI.ABEY TOM SRI.O.F.JUSTIN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BASIL JOSEPH, KOTTAMKULAM HOUSE, EAST MARADY, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SANTHOSH JOSE SMT.R.SUJA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.2552 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was sentenced by the court of first instance to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine, with default sentence. The Court of Session confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence by reducing it to be one of imprisonment till the rising of the court and compensation of Rs.60,000/- to be paid to the complainant. 2. The courts below have found against the version of the accused that he had issued a blank cheque and had availed only a smaller amount. The courts below upheld the version of the complainant that Ext.P1 cheque dated 2.3.1998 was issued, was supported by consideration and was dishonoured on presentation, for insufficiency of funds. CRRP2552/2004 2 The accused did not even reply to the statutory notice issued on behalf of the complainant. The complainant tendered evidence as PW1. The defence version set up by the accused was not proved, as has been rightly held by the Court of Session. On the question whether the application of the accused to recall and examine the complainant is rightly rejected, the Court of Session held that the learned Magistrate was right in holding that, the said petition was with an intention to protract trial. It was also noticed that the accused who filed a list of witnesses did not examine any of the witnesses cited by him. On the totality of the facts and evidence on record, I am satisfied that the conviction and the modified sentence imposed by the Court of Session do not call for any interference in this revision. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge csl