IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3887 of 2009()
1. RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, U.D.21,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MOOSA P., S/O.KUNHI BAVA, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :15/12/2009
O R D E R
P.S.Gopinathan, J.
==========================================
Crl.R.P.3887 of 2009
==========================================
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009.
ORDER
1.As against the concurrent finding of conviction
and fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, this revision
petition was filed. 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 P.W.1,
had succeeded to establish that the revision
petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- and in
discharge of the liability, a cheque dated
5.12.2006 for the said amount drawn on Malampuzha
Service Co-operative Bank, which was marked as
Ext.P1, was issued to the first respondent. When
it was sent for collection, it was dishonoured
for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by
Exts.P2 and P3 memos dated 22.12.2006. Demanding
CRRP3887/09 -:2:-
discharge of the liability, a lawyer notice dated
20.1.2007, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4,
was caused. Despite the acknowledgement of
notice, as evidenced by Ext.P6 dated 22.1.2007,
the liability was not discharged. Neither there
is any reply to the notice.
2.The revision petitioner took up a defence of
total denial. No evidence was let in. The
evidence of P.W.1 is supported by Ext.P1 and the
presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act that it was drawn for
valuable consideration and delivered in discharge
of the liability. The evidence of P.W.1 remains
unchallenged. There is no case for the revision
petitioner that there is no liability or that the
cheque was not issued by him or that the
liability was discharged. Hence, I find that the
conviction under challenge is based upon cogent
evidence and there is no reason to interfere with
CRRP3887/09 -:3:-
it.
3.The trial court was very lenient in confining the
sentence to a fine of Rs.50,000/-, which is the
cheque amount. The sentence was correctly
confirmed by the trial court. There is no reason
to interfere with it.
In the result, this revision petition is
dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted
six months’ time to remit the fine. Till then,
the bail bond executed by him shall remain in
force.
P.S.Gopinathan, Judge.
sl.