IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3665 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.229/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR CC.809/2001 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHALAKKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- C.K.PURUSHAN, S/O.THEVAN, VELLAGE ASSISTANT, L.D.CLERK, KANAYANNUR TLAUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. ]RI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.P.PAULYI, S/O.ANTONY.K.V. KACHARAKKAL, MELOOR P.O., CHALAKKUDY, 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3665 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 14th day of November,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.809/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate,Chalakudy. Case of the first respondent was that petitioner borrowed Rs.20,000/- and towards its discharge issued Ext.P1 cheque drawn in his account and when the cheque was presented it was dishonoured under Ext.P2 for want of sufficient funds and inspite of Ext.P4 notice served on the petitioner, under Ext.P6, it was not paid and petitioner thereby committed an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. First respondent was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence. The defence raised was that Ext.P1 cheque was issued not to the first respondent but to his cousin and it was misused by CRRP 3665/2008 2 the first respondent. Learned Magistrate on the evidence disbelieved the defence case and accepted the evidence of PW1 and found that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards repayment of the amount borrowed. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of Rs.22,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.A.229/2006. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that courts below should not have believed the evidence of PW1 and should have found that Ext.P1 cheque was not issued towards payment of any legally recoverable debt and instead was issued to Shaji an CRRP 3665/2008 3 LIC agent and therefore the conviction is not sustainable. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction. Though petitioner contended that Ext.P1 cheque was not issued to first respondent and was issued to one Shaji, learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge on proper appreication of evidence found the evidence of PW1 credible and reliable. It was found that Ext.P1 cheque was not issued to Shaji but was issued towards repayment of the amount borrowed. I find no reason to interfere with that factual finding, in the absence of any other material. The fact that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent has complied with all the statutory formalities provided under sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act are not disputed. In such circumstance, conviction of the petitioner is perfectly legal. CRRP 3665/2008 4 5. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. The sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is only imprisonment till rising of court and compensation which was only Rs.2000/- in excess of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted two months time to pay the amount. He is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 17.1.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006