IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2963 of 2009()
1. SAJI HASSAN, KOHINOOR HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PAUL JOSEPH, EDASSERRIPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :29/09/2009
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.2963 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009
ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.193 of
2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II,
Changanassery. The first respondent prosecuted the revision
petitioner alleging 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 simple
imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1,50,000/-
with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one
month.
2. Being aggrieved, Criminal Appeal No.483 of 2008
was preferred. The Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I,
Kottayam to whom the appeal was made over concurred with
the lower court in its finding regarding the guilt.
Consequently the conviction was confirmed. The substantive
Crl.R.P.No.2963 of 2009
2
sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court.
The fine imposed was confirmed. Assailing the legality,
correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence,
this revision petition filed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and perusing the judgments of the courts below, I find
that the first respondent who was examined as PW.1 supported
by Exts.P1 to P6, had succeeded to establish that the revision
petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the first respondent
and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1 cheque was issued and
that when Ext.P1 cheque was sent for collection it was returned
bounced for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Exts.P2 and
P3 memos dated 21/12/05 and 22/12/2005 respectively.
Demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice dated
27/12/2005, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4 was issued.
Despite the acknowledgment of the notice as evidenced by
Exts.P5 and P6, the liability was not discharged. The courts
below had correctly appreciated the evidence and conviction is
Crl.R.P.No.2963 of 2009
3
based upon cogent evidence. I find no reason to interfere the
conviction impugned.
4. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing the
sentence. If at all erred, it is towards leniency only and requires
no interference.
5. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed. The
revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of fine
provided he executes a bail bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty
five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like sum to
the satisfaction of the trial court within 15 days.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
Skj.