IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 595 of 2001(C) ----------------------------- CRA.40/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA ST.529/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- C.RAJAPPAN CHETTIAR, VELIYIL VEEDU, WEST OF UNIVERSITY STUDY CENTRE, ALAPPUZHA-3. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.THAMPI, KAVITHA BHAVAN, VADACKAL P.O. ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.595 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May 2008 ORDER Petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the instance of respondent No.1 herein. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Act. The above order was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. Hence this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had borrowed from him a sum of Rs.13,126/- and in discharge of the said debt he had issued two cheques for Rs.6,000/- and Rs.7,126/-. When Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.6,000/- was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused with a memo 'refer to the drawer'. Though a statutory notice was issued demanding payment, it was returned unclaimed and the accused did not repay the amount. 3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and his witness, the Crl.R.P.No.595 OF 2001 :: 2 :: manager of the Bank was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P9 were also marked on his side. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the accused. 4. It is pertinent to note that the accused did not cross examine PW1 or PW2. It is seen from records that the petitioner/accused did not avail of the opportunity to do so. The learned Magistrate, after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the complainant had satisfactorily proved his case. The learned Sessions Judge had re- evaluated the oral and documentary evidence in appeal also and confirms the orders passed by the trial court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the materials available on record, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the concurrent finding entered by the courts below. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes