IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4006 of 2007() ------------------------------ CRA.847/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM ST.437/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.S.RAJAGOPAL, S/O KESAVANKUTTY, T.C.28/1184, THIRUVATHIRA, SREEKANTESWARAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O VASUDEVAN PILLAI, P.K.NILAYAM, PANCHYAT OFFICE LANE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH CHOURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PADMALAYAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: pm S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.4006 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November 2011 ORDER The revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently by the two inferior courts. Sentence imposed against the accused, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay the compensation with default term of simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent/complainant has entered appearance. The accused has resisted his prosecution for the offence imputed setting forth a plea of discharge. Cheques, two in number, the dishonour of which gave rise to his prosecution, had been given towards security in relation to the chitty transactions which he had with the complainant, was the defence canvassed by the accused. There were two chitty transactions in which sums in advance were given by the complainant on condition of remittance daily over a period of time and at the time of availing such sums from the complainant, on two different occasions, he had handed over the cheques involved in the case as security, was the case of Crl. R.P No.4006 OF 2007 2 the accused. The defence so canvassed by the accused that there was chitty transaction as between the parties and the cheques were handed over in relation to such transaction was refuted by the complainant when suggestions thereto were made during his cross examination as PW1. Statutory notice issued on dishonour of the cheque after acknowledgment remained unresponded by the accused. The defence belatedly taken in the trial under the aforesaid circumstances, setting forth a plea of discharge as well, which remained unsupported by any material other than the evidence of the accused, who was examined as DW1, was found unworthy of any merit by the trial magistrate. On the contrary, the evidence let in by the complainant, who was examined as PW1 that the cheques had been issued by the accused towards discharge of a legally enforcible debt or liability to him was found trustworthy, credible and convincing. The finding so formed by the trial magistrate on the evidence let in the case that the case of the complainant has been proved and the defence of the accused was devoid of any merit, after reappreciation of the evidence, was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. I do not find any infirmity, whatsoever, to disturb the concurrent finding so entered by the two inferior courts to found a conviction against the accused in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court. Needless to Crl. R.P No.4006 OF 2007 3 point out, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only where it is shown the finding of the court below on disputed facts is perverse in the sense it could not have been formed on the materials tendered in the case. There is no ground, whatsoever, for interfering with the conviction entered against the accused. Sentence imposed is also found to be just and reasonable. Revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge