IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2005 of 2011(M) ---------------------------------------------- CRA.215/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM ST.2353/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV (MOBILE COURT), TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------- M. THAHA, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KANNU, T.C 34/1249, AIRPORT ROAD, VALLAKADAVU.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.LATHEESH KUMAR SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.-31 2. JACOB PETER, TC 14/1917, PALAYAM, UNIVERSITY.P.O,PIN-695 025 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRRP.NO.2005/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX AI COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/07/2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.215 OF 2008 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/02/2008 IN ST NO.2353 OF 2006 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV (MOBILE COURT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2005 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August 2011 ORDER 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. The accused, on his conviction, has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court with a direction to pay compensation of `40,000/-, the cheque amount, with default term of simple imprisonment for one month. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. Conviction of the accused, concurrently rendered by the two courts below, is assailed by the counsel contending that the complainant has not let in cogent and convincing evidence to prove the execution and also passing of consideration under the instruments (two cheques) despite denial of those aspects by the accused. Solitary evidence of the complainant examined as PW1 alone is available in the case to prove the execution of the instrument, which was disputed by the accused, is the submission Crl.R.P No.2005 OF 2011 - 2 - of the counsel. In evidence, the complainant, who was examined as PW1, pleaded ignorance of the whereabouts and address of the accused, is also pointed out by the counsel to contend that the challenge raised as regards the execution of the cheques disputing any transaction with the complainant deserved serious consideration in the case, but, it was not appreciated and taken into account by the courts below while founding a conviction against him. 3. After going through the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find no merit in the challenge raised by the counsel. Statutory notice issued, it is seen, was responded with endorsement 'unclaimed'. Evidently, at the stage of trial, the accused had set forth a challenge denying the execution of the cheque and of having any transaction with the complainant contending that the cheques bearing his signature were handed over to a different person in relation to a transaction with that person. Other than putting forth some vague suggestions to the complainant/PW1 during the course of his cross examination, no material, whatsoever, was let in the case to substantiate that defence. Such suggestions had been denied by the complainant/PW1. The evidence of the complainant, Crl.R.P No.2005 OF 2011 - 3 - who was examined as PW1, was found credible and trustworthy to the learned Magistrate, and also to the learned Sessions Judge, who had reappreciated the materials on record. I do not find any infirmity in the finding arrived by the two courts to uphold the case of the complainant that the cheques had been issued by the accused towards discharge of a debt or liability towards him. Having regard to the limitations within which the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised, I find, the challenge against the conviction canvassed by the counsel has no merit at all. Conviction of the accused, it is seen, is supported by unimpeachable legal evidence. So far as the sentence imposed against the accused also, maximum leniency has been extended by both the courts below and as such, it does not call for any interference. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, pleaded for having some more time to pay the compensation awarded and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Cheques covered by Ext.P1 series giving raise to the prosecution of the accused and ultimately leading to his conviction, it is seen, were drawn during the year 2005. When that be so, the plea for further extension of time lacks merit. 5. Confirming the conviction of the accused, he is directed to Crl.R.P No.2005 OF 2011 - 4 - appear before the Magistrate concerned on 20-09-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and also to report payment of compensation. Till the date fixed as above, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of compensation, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge