IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 929 of 2000() ----------------------------- ST.469/1997 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CRA.80/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------------------ N.K.ASOKAN, FIELDMAN, KRISHI VINJANA KENDRA, NJARAKKAL. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. P.N.SIVASANKARA MENON, PAZHATTU HOUSE, NJARAKKAL. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 929 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008. ORDER Petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court found him guilty and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/= and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 more months. The above order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Court. Hence this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant before the trial court was that the accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque dated October 31, 1996 for a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- in discharge of the debt which he owed to the complainant. But when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The statutory notice issued by the complainant did not evoke any response. The liability was not discharged by the accused. 3. The complainant was examined before the trial court as Pw.1 and his witnesses were examined as Pws.2 and 3. Exts.P1 to P7 were also marked on his side. The accused did not adduce any evidence in the case. 4. The defence set up by the accused before the trial court was that he had borrowed only a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. At the time of borrowal, he had handed over two signed blank cheques as security to the complainant, who had Crl.RP.929/2000 2 misused one of the said two cheques for launching this prosecution. 5. The learned Magistrate after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, did not accept the defence version. The learned Magistrate found that the complainant had satisfactorily established his case. The appellate court also found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against the accused. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by the courts below. As rightly noticed by the courts below, the defence case was that he had handed over two blank signed cheques to the complainant as security at the time when he borrowed Rs.5,000/- . The said contention was not substantiated by the accused in any manner known to law. Therefore in my view the courts below were justified in holding the petitioner guilty under section 138 of the Act. There is no merit in the revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.