K.P.Bijukumar vs M/S.Hemambika Hire Purchase And … on 16 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4076 of 2008()


1. K.P.BIJUKUMAR, S/O.PONNAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S.HEMAMBIKA HIRE PURCHASE AND LEASING
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :16/12/2008

 O R D E R
                    M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                      ...........................................
                    CRL.R.P.NO. 4076 OF 2008
                      ............................................
      DATED THIS THE            16th       DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008

                                     ORDER

Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the

complainant in S.T.2981 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistrate-I, Palakkad. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for

the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the

conviction before Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.A.564 of 2006.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence,

confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to simple

imprisonment for 15 days and a fine of Rs.12,851/- with a direction to

pay the same as compensation to first respondent. It is challenged in

this revision petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard.

Learned counsel submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of

courts below and evidence on record, revision petitioner is not

challenging the conviction but the sentence may be modified.

3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the

judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the

conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P2

cheque in discharge of legal liability of Rs.12,851/- and the cheque

was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had

CRRP 4076/2008 2

complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138

and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence

under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal.

4. Then the question is with regard to the sentence. So long as

sentence is not varied or modified against the interest of first

respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to first respondent.

Considering the fact that the amount covered by the cheque is only

Rs.12,851/-, interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is

sufficiently modified to fine.

5. Revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of revision

petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is confirmed.

Sentence is modified to a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default, simple

imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, Rs.12,851/- to be

paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of

Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted one month

time to pay the fine.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-