IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2927 of 2010()
1. M.B.BAIJU, S/O.ACHUTHAN BALAKRISHNAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAGIN P.G., S/O.P.GIRIJAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.H.B.SHENOY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :14/12/2010
O R D E R
P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
CR. R.P. NO. 2927 OF 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. 757 of 2007 on the file
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. The first respondent
herein prosecuted the appellant alleging offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act with pleading that the revision petitioner owed
a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- and in discharge of the same, Ext.P1 cheque dated
5.7.2007 drawn on Indus Bank Limited, Kochi Branch was issued and that
when presented for collection through the Union Bank of India,
Kannamaly Branch, it was returned dishonoured for insufficient funds and
despite the notice demanding discharge, the liability was not cleared.
2. Since the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty when the
particulars of the offence was read over and explained by the Magistrate, he
was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution, the first respondent was
examined as PW.1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. When the
incriminating materials revealed in evidence were put to the revision
petitioner he totally denied. No defence evidence was let in.
CRL. R.P. 2927 OF 2010 2
3. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence on record,
arrived at a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was
convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of
Rs. 7,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, Crl.A. No.
586 of 2009 was preferred. By the impugned judgment dated 8.3.2010, the
Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Ernakulam., while confirming the
conviction, reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court.
Taking note that during the trial the revision petitioner paid a sum of Rs.
4,00,000/- the fine was reduced to Rs. 3,50,000/- with a default sentence of
Simple Imprisonment for three months.
4. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above
conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision was preferred.
5. Having heard Sri. Biju Abraham, learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned as well as the
judgment of the trial court, I find that the first respondent, who was
examined as PW.1, supported by Ext.P1, had succeeded in establishing
that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.750,000/- for the discharge of
which Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when ExtP1 was sent for
collection, it was returned as dishonoured for insufficient funds as
evidenced by Exts.P2 and P3 memos. Though a lawyer notice demanding
CRL. R.P. 2927 OF 2010 3
discharge of the liability was caused, the appellant did not discharge the
liability but Ext.P4 reply notice was caused. Though PW.1 was subjected
to searching cross examination, no material was disclosed to disbelieve him.
Evidence of PW.1 is supported by the presumptions under Section 118 and
139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that Ext.P1 was drawn for valuable
consideration and issued in discharge of liability. The revision petitioner
has no good explanation as to how the first respondent obtained Ext.P1
cheque. In the above circumstance, going by the judgments impugned, I
find that the courts below had correctly appraised the evidence of PW.1
supported by Exts.P1 to P5 and rightly come to a conclusion of guilt. The
conclusion is based upon cogent evidence. The Appellate court was very
lenient in reducing the sentence to imprisonment till the raising of the court.
The fine imposed is also just and no interference is called for.
In the result, the Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly
dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to deposit the fine
amount. The bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force till
the fine imposed is deposited.
P.S. GOPINATHAN,
(JUDGE)
knc/-