IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/16TH BHADRA, 1938

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1208 of 2016 () --------------------------------

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 635/2012 of ADDL. D.C. & SESSIONS COURT - II, NORTH PARAVUR AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 251/2010 of J.M.F.C. - II, NORTH PARAVUR DATED

REVISION PETITIONER(S)//APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -----------------------------------------

ABHILASH AGED 34 YEARS, S/O SASIDHARAN, ERAYATHARA HOUSE, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 013

BY ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA

RESPONDENT(S)//RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------

• 1. K.A.ABDUL SALAM AGED 52 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KARIM, KANNACHAKKASSERY HOUSE, ROSE VILLA, MANNAM P.O., PARUR VILLAGE, PARAVU TALUK - 683 520
• 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA- 682 031

R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRASUN.S R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.K.SURESH

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

SUNIL THOMAS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 1208 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7 th day of September, 2016

O R D E R

This revision arises from the judgment in ST No.251/2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,N.Paravur, in which the accused was found guilty and convicted, and confirmed in Crl.Appeal No.635/2012 of Addl. District & Sessions Court,N.Paravur.

2. The complainant laid a complaint on the basis of a dishonoured cheque. The allegation of the complainant was that, he was a wholesale dealer of provisions and the accused used to purchase items from him. Towards the amount that was due, the disputed cheque was handed over. The cheque was presented for collection, but was returned dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of fund.

3. Before the court below, the accused appeared and contested the proceedings. On the side of the complainant, PW1 and PW2 were examined. PW1, the complainant himself, tendered evidence in accordance with the complaint. The court below relied on evidence of PW1 as well as the other evidence let in by him. The accused did not set up any valid, cogent and believable evidence. In the light of the above as well as the fact that the accused did not seriously challenge the signature, transaction and the receipt of the lawyer notice, the court below arrived at a proper conclusion of guilt. The accused was sentenced to undergo sentence also.

4. This was carried in appeal. The appellate court confirmed the conviction, but partly modified the sentence to fine alone with a default sentence.

5. Having considered the evidence on record, I have no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the courts below concurrently, which are based on solid evidence. The sentence has also been modified by confining it to fine alone with default sentence. Hence, I find that the sentence is also in accordance with the guilt proved.

6. In the light of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence portion also. The accused is granted three months time to discharge the entire liability. Any amount in deposit pursuant to the direction of the court towards the above case will be adjusted against the sentence portion. If the sentence is not complied with, within three months' from today, the court below will be entitled to initiate

CRRP No.1208/2016 3

proper legal proceedings.

The revision petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

dpk

/true copy/ PS to Judge.