IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3427 of 2009()
1. MR.M.SIDDIK, AGED 35/2009,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. MR.REMESH HEGDE, AGED 40 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :04/11/2009
O R D E R
P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 3427 of 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009
O R D E R
1. Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.102/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod. The 2nd
respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner
alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. After trial the revision petitioner was
found guilty. Consequently he was convicted and sentenced
to simple imprisonment for six months with direction to pay
Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the 2nd respondent. In
default of payment of compensation the revision petitioner
was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months. In Crl. Appl. No.14/2008 the conviction was
confirmed. But, the sentence was reduced to simple
imprisonment for 10 days with compensation.
2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety
of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in
Crl.R.P.No. 3427 of 2009
2
appeal, this revision petition was filed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and perusing the judgments of the court below, I
find that the 2nd respondent who was examined as PW1
supported by Exts.P1to P6 had succeeded to establish that
the revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from
the 2nd respondent and in discharge of that liability Ext.P1
cheque dated 28.12.2006, drawn on State Bank of
Travancore, Manjeshwar Branch was issued and that when
Ext.P1 cheque was sent for collection it was returned
dishonoured for want of sufficient funds as evidenced by
Ext.P2 memo dated 29.12.2006 and P3 intimation dated
02.01.2007. Demanding discharge of the liability, a lawyer
notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P4, was caused.
The notice was returned unclaimed as evidenced by Ext.P6.
The liability was not discharged. Revision petitioner, during
the trial took up a defence that an amount of Rs.10,000/-
was borrowed from one Murali and as security, a blank
Crl.R.P.No. 3427 of 2009
3
cheque was issued. The amount borrowed was discharged
and that misusing the cheque so given this complaint was
filed. However the revision petitioner did not care to
adduce any evidence in support of his plea. The evidence of
PW1 supported by Exts.P1 to P6 and the legal presumptions
under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act remains uncontroverted. I find no reason to disbelieve
the evidence of PW1. The complaint was filed after
complying the statutory procedures. The courts below
arrived at a correct conclusion that the revision petitioner
committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. I find that the conviction under challenge
is unassailable.
4. Taking note that the revision petitioner is a
person without any employment and an ordinary money
transaction had caused him to face the prosecution, I find
that he is entitled to a little more leniency and that a
sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court with
Crl.R.P.No. 3427 of 2009
4
Rs.80,000/- as compensation would meet the ends of justice.
5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in
part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is
reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court with
compensation of Rs.80,000/-. In default of payment of
compensation the revision petitioner shall undergo simple
imprisonment for three months. The revision petitioner is
granted six months time for payment of compensation. Till
then, the bail bond executed by him will remain in force.
P.S. GOPINATHAN,
JUDGE
shg/