Suresh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 5 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 26 of 2009()


1. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.DAMODARAN PILLA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :05/01/2009

 O R D E R
               M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
               ------------------------------------------
                  CRL.R.P.NO.26 OF 2009
               ------------------------------------------

                Dated        5th January 2009


                            O R D E R

Revision petitioner is accused and second

respondent, the complainant in S.T.60/06 on the file of

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. Revision petitioner

was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for

three months by Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was

challenged before Sessions court, Manjeri in

Crl.A.6/2008. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-

appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but

modified the substantive sentence to fine of

Rs.1,10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for

three months with a direction to pay the fine on

realisation to second respondent as compensation.

Revision petition is filed challenging conviction and

sentence.

2. Learned counsel appearing for revision

petitioner was heard.

3. Learned counsel, in view of evidence on record

and concurrent findings of fact submitted that

CRRP 26/09
2

revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction

and the sentence and he may be granted time to pay the

fine.

4. On going through the judgments of the courts

below, I find no reason to interfere with the

conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that

revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque for

Rs.1,10,000/- towards repayment of the amount due and it

was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second

respondent had complied with all statutory formalities

provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for

the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act is perfectly legal. Learned Additional Sessions

Judge modified the sentence to only fine and that too

with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to

second respondent as compensation. In such

circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the

conviction or the sentence.

Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petition

is granted four months time to the pay fine.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.

CRRP 26/09
3