IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 633 of 2001(A) ------------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.285/2000 OF V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM, CC.NO.507/1998 OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- ANITHA ZACHARIAH, BUCON BUILDERS & INTERIORS, IIND FLOOR, AMBADY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.TOMY SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- K.S. UNNI, S/O. SUKUMARAN, KANAKKATTUSSERY, 50/262, NEAR AL-AMEEN SCHOOL, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN -24. BY ADV. MR. M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009,ALONG WITH CRL.R.P NO.3299 OF 2003,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. CRL.R.P. NO. 633/2001-A: ORDER ON CRL.M.P. NO.3046/2001 IN CRL.R.P. NO. 633/2001-A DISMISSED 01/10/2009. SD/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.S.Gopinathan, J. ========================================== Crl.R.P.633 of 2001 ========================================== Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009. ORDER 1.The respondent prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam in C.C.No.507 of 1998 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after due trial, arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months with direction to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though the revision petitioner preferred Crl.A.285 of 2000, no steps were taken, despite several postings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety CRRP633/01 -:2:- of the order dismissing appeal, which resulted confirmation of the conviction and sentence, this revision petition was preferred. 2.The revision petitioner and respondent were heard and perused the judgment of the trial court. The respondent, who was examined as P.W.1, supported by Exts.P1 to P8, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 21.10.1997 was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos. To a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4 dated 24.10.1997, the revision petitioner sent a reply stating that Ext.P1 was issued as a security. The liability was not discharged. Though the revision petitioner had taken up a contention that Ext.P1 CRRP633/01 -:3:- was issued as a security, no evidence was let in to that effect. Result is that there is no material to controvert the evidence of P.W.1. In the above circumstances, the learned Magistrate was correct in giving reliance to the testimony of P.W.1 supported by Exts.P1 to P8 and the legal presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that Ext.P1 was issued in discharge of the liability. I find no error or illegality or impropriety committed by the trial court in arriving a conclusion of guilt so as to be rectified in exercise of revisional powers. Conviction assailed is sustainable. 3.Taking into account of the fact that the revision petitioner is a housewife and that Ext.P1 cheque was alleged to have been issued for the discharge of the liability of her husband and that the compensation awarded to the first respondent is not adequate, I find that the revision petitioner CRRP633/01 -:4:- is entitled to leniency in sentence and the impugned sentence requires modification. Taking into account of the facts and circumstances, I find that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court with direction to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C would meet the ends of justice. In default of payment of compensation, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The revision petitioner is granted four months' time to pay the compensation, provided, she executes a bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, within three weeks. Revision petition is disposed of as above. sl. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. CRRP633/01 -:5:- P.S.Gopinathan, J. ========================================== Crl.R.P.633 of 2001 ========================================== ORDER Dated:1.10.2009