IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3624 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.245/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.2434/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD ................................. REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- K.ARUMUGHAN S/O.KOOPPAN, AGED 48 YEARS, 39/1408, ARALIYODEKALAM, NEAR MANORAMA OFFICE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O. NAGAPPANKUTTI MOOTHAN,29/33(I)SREE RAMA PALAYAM, KARNAKI NAGAR, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYASANKAR SRI.G.HARIHARAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN J. ----------------------------- CRL.R.P No. 3624 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009. O R D E R The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Palakkad in S.T.No.2434 of 2005 on his file convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation to the first respondent who was the complainant before the trial court. In Crl.A.No.245 of 2007 while confirming the conviction, the sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs.1,25,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Fine, on realisation was ordered to be given to the first respondent as compensation. Now this revision petition. 2. Having heard either side and perusing the judgment of the courts below, I find that the first respondent who was examined as PW1, supported by Exts.P1 to P3 series had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- from the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 28.3.2005 drawn on Palakkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was returned bounced for insufficiency of funds and that demanding discharge of the liability a CRL.R.P No. 3624 of 2009 2 lawyer notice dated 2.4.2005 copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 was caused and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P3(a). But, the liability was not discharged. The revision petitioner took a defence that while borrowing a sum of Rs.2,000/- from one Vadakkanthara Gopalakrishnan, two blank signed cheques, one signed by himself and another by his wife and misusing the cheque signed by him, the prosecution was lodged. Other than the suggestion, there was no attempt even to adduce any evidence in support of the defence plea. Therefore the evidence of PW1, which is supported by the legal presumptions under Section 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains uncontroverted. There is nothing on record to show that the first respondent got Ext.P1 cheque in any manner other than what was deposed by him. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner had not acknowledged the notice and the signature contained in Ext.P3(a) varies with the signature in Ext.P1. The Courts below had considered the evidence and arrived a conclusion that the notice was duly accepted. I find nothing wrong in such a conclusion. It is pertinent to note that the revision petitioner had not filed any reply. If the defence raised is true, in the normal course, the revision petitioner would have retorted to the notice. The silence of the revision petitioner after acknowledging the notice also looms large. I find little material to CRL.R.P No. 3624 of 2009 3 interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding delivery of cheque, dishonour, issuance of notice and failure to discharge the liability. The conviction is based on cogent evidence. No reason is to interfere with. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the sentence to one of fine equal to that of cheque amount. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. However, the revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the fine amount. Till then, the bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab