High Court Kerala High Court

Soman.K.P. vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 8 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Soman.K.P. vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 8 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4240 of 2008()


1. SOMAN.K.P.S/O.PADMANABHAN, MANAGING
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. M.V.THOMAS, MANAGING PARTNER, AISWARYA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.AJITH MURALI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :08/01/2009

 O R D E R
                  M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

               -------------------------------------------------

                     CRL.R.P.NO. 4240 OF 2008

               --------------------------------------------------

              Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009

                                O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent

the complainant in C.C.1336 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Thiruvalla. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for

the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He

challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in

Crl. Appeal 299 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of

evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to

imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation of Rs.74,935/-,

the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque under section 357(3)

of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision is filed challenging the

conviction and the sentence.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, in

view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of Courts

below submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the

conviction or the sentence and he may be granted four months time to

pay the compensation.

3. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I

CRRP 4240/08
2

find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence.

Evidence establish that towards payment of the amount due to the

first respondent under Ext.P1partnership agreement, revision

petitioner issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 28.6.2002 for Rs.74,935/- and

the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when

presented and second respondent had complied with all the statutory

formalities provided under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138

of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal.

4. Though the Magistrate awarded a sentence of simple

imprisonment for three months, learned Sessions Judge modified the

sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court in addition to a direction

to pay compensation of the amount covered by the dishonoured

cheque to second respondent. In such circumstances I find no reason

to interfere with the sentence also.

Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three

months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear

before the Magistrate on 13.4.2009.

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

okb