IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1541 of 2010()
1. S/O.CHELLAPPAN, VIJAYA SADANAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. G.PUSHPANGADHAN, S/O.GANGADHARAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :18/05/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1541 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.538/2005
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur and the
appellant in Crl.A.No.80/2007 in the court of Second Addl.
Sessions Court, Kollam. The offence alleged against him is
u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. According to the complainant, the accused borrowed a
sum of Rs.16,000/- from the complainant and towards the
discharge of the said debt, he had issued the cheque, which
when presented for encashment dishonoured. During the trial of
the case, the accused adduced his evidence consists of the oral
testimony of PW1, the complainant himself and documentary
evidences such as Exts.P1 to P8. No evidence was adduced
from the side of the defence. On the basis of the available
materials and evidence, the trial court has found that the
complainant has established the case, consequent to which the
presumptions u/s.139 of NI Act has to be drawn in favour of the
Crl.R.P.No.1541 of 2010
2
complainant. The trial court further found that, though the
accused has put up a case that he had no connection with the
complainant and never issued Ext.P1 cheque to the
complainant, no evidence was adduced to substantiate the
above version. According to the accused, he had borrowed
some amount from one Jayan and the said amount had repaid to
said Jayan and the signed blank cheque obtained by Jayan at
the time of obtaining the loan, was not returned to the accused.
On the other hand, the said Jayan had entrusted blank cheque
with the complainant, who misused the said cheque and
preferred the complaint. Absolutely no evidence was adduced to
establish the above case. The accused has no case that he had
taken any action against the said Jayan for not returning the
cheque allegedly entrusted with him. Therefore, I find no
illegality in the finding arrived on by the trial court that, the
accused failed to rebut the presumptions available in favour of
the complainant, as he had established the case against the
accused. In the above finding of the trial court and the
Crl.R.P.No.1541 of 2010
3
conviction, which approved by the appellate court, there is
nothing illegal warranting the interference of this court. Thus,
according to me there is no merit in the revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted
that, the revision petitioner is a coolie and some breathing time
may be granted to make the payment, which according to me
can be considered in favour of the revision petitioner.
In the result, this criminal revision petition is disposed of
confirming the conviction recorded by the trial court as well as
the lower appellate court and confirming the sentence imposed
by the lower appellate court and also the direction to pay the
compensation of Rs.16,000/-. Accordingly, the revision
petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on
19.7.2010, to receive the sentence and to make the payment of
Rs.16,000/- as compensation, as ordered by the lower appellate
court. In case of making default in the compensation amount,
the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 3 months. If there is any failure on
Crl.R.P.No.1541 of 2010
4
the part of the revision petitioner, in appearing before the court
below as directed above, the trial court is free to take coercive
steps for procuring the presence of the revision petitioner and to
execute the sentence.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
ami/