IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3393 of 2009()
1. K.T.GEETHA, W/O.A.BALAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.T.AMBADI, S/O.CHANDAM VELICHAPPADAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :02/11/2009
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
== = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No.3393 of 2009.
= = = == = = = = = = =
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the accused in
CC.No.499/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the
First Class-I, Hosdurg. 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 two months. She was further ordered to
pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation, to the first respondent
under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In
appeal, the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod confirmed the
conviction and the sentence was reduced to imprisonment
till rising of the court. The order to pay compensation and
default clause are confirmed. Assailing the legality,
correctness and propriety of the above conviction and
Crl.R.P.No.3393 of 2009.
-: 2 :-
sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was
filed.
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that
the first respondent, who was examined as Pw1, supported
by Exts.P1 to P4, had succeeded to establish that the
revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- to the first
respondent and in partial discharge of liability Ext.P1
cheque for Rs.60,000/- dated 17.10.2006 drawn on
Syndicate Bank, Kanhangad Branch was issued and that
when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for
insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Ext.P2 memo dated
17.10.2006. Though a lawyer notice dated 16.11.2006, copy
of which was marked as Ext.P3, was caused demanding
discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the
revision petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P4, the liability was
not discharged. There is no contra evidence. The revision
petitioner has got no good defence. The evidence of Pw1
remains uncontroverted. I find that the courts below had
Crl.R.P.No.3393 of 2009.
-: 3 :-
correctly appreciated the evidence and arrived a finding of
guilty. The conviction under challenge is unassailable.
3. The appellate court was very lenient in reducing
the sentence to one of imprisonment till rising of the Court.
If at all erred, it is only towards leniency. The order to pay
compensation is quite appropriate.
4. In the result, the revision petitioner is dismissed.
The revision petitioner is granted six months’ time for
payment of compensation. Till then, the bond executed by
the revision petitioner shall remain in force.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
Kvs/-