IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3665 of 2008()
1. C.K.PURUSHAN, S/O.THEVAN, VELLAGE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.P.PAULYI, S/O.ANTONY.K.V. KACHARAKKAL,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :14/11/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
Crl.R.P. NO.3665 OF 2008
===========================
Dated this the 14th day of November,2008
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused and first
respondent the complainant in C.C.809/2001 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate,Chalakudy.
Case of the first respondent was that petitioner
borrowed Rs.20,000/- and towards its discharge
issued Ext.P1 cheque drawn in his account and when
the cheque was presented it was dishonoured under
Ext.P2 for want of sufficient funds and inspite of
Ext.P4 notice served on the petitioner, under
Ext.P6, it was not paid and petitioner thereby
committed an offence under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner pleaded not
guilty. First respondent was examined as PW1 and
Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. Petitioner did not
adduce any evidence. The defence raised was that
Ext.P1 cheque was issued not to the first
respondent but to his cousin and it was misused by
CRRP 3665/2008 2
the first respondent. Learned Magistrate on the
evidence disbelieved the defence case and accepted
the evidence of PW1 and found that Ext.P1 cheque
was issued towards repayment of the amount
borrowed. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced
to imprisonment till rising of court and a
compensation of Rs.22,000/- and in default simple
imprisonment for three months. Petitioner
challenged the conviction and sentence before
Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.A.229/2006.
Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of
evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and
dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this
revision.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner
was heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel is that
courts below should not have believed the evidence
of PW1 and should have found that Ext.P1 cheque was
not issued towards payment of any legally
recoverable debt and instead was issued to Shaji an
CRRP 3665/2008 3
LIC agent and therefore the conviction is not
sustainable.
4. On hearing the learned counsel and going
through the judgments of the courts below, I do not
find any reason to interfere with the conviction.
Though petitioner contended that Ext.P1 cheque was
not issued to first respondent and was issued to
one Shaji, learned Magistrate and learned Sessions
Judge on proper appreication of evidence found the
evidence of PW1 credible and reliable. It was
found that Ext.P1 cheque was not issued to Shaji
but was issued towards repayment of the amount
borrowed. I find no reason to interfere with that
factual finding, in the absence of any other
material. The fact that Ext.P1 cheque was
dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first
respondent has complied with all the statutory
formalities provided under sections 138 and 142 of
Negotiable Instruments Act are not disputed. In
such circumstance, conviction of the petitioner is
perfectly legal.
CRRP 3665/2008 4
5. Then the only question is regarding the
sentence. The sentence awarded by the learned
Magistrate as confirmed by the learned Sessions
Judge is only imprisonment till rising of court
and compensation which was only Rs.2000/- in excess
of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. I
find no reason to interfere with the sentence also.
Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
Petitioner is granted two months time to pay the
amount. He is directed to appear before the
Magistrate on 17.1.2009.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006