IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 651 of 2001()
1. P.K.SATHEESAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAJESH
For Respondent :SRI.T.KURIAKOSE PETER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :20/03/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.651 of 2001
-----------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009
O R D E R
This revision is filed by the accused against the
concurrent verdict of guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short the
NI Act. The trial court on his conviction sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for four months and a fine of
Rs.10,000/- with a direction to pay fine, if realised, as
compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Sessions Judge in appeal
upholding the conviction modified the sentence directing
him to suffer imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay
compensation of an amount of Rs.14,000/-, with default
term of simple imprisonment for two months. Out of the
compensation so imposed, Rs.12,000/- was directed to be
paid to the complainant. Questioning the legality, propriety
and correctness of the conviction, concurrently held by both
Crl.R.P.No.651 of 2001
2
the courts below and sentence as indicated, this revision is
filed.
2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides.
3. Perusing the records of the case, I find that the
complainant had complied with all statutory formalities for
launching the prosecution against the accused for offence
punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Though the
accused denied the offence imputed, no defence was
canvassed to sustain his plea of not guilty. The complainant
examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Exts.P1 to P6 as
documentary evidence to prove his case. The learned
magistrate who had recorded evidence of the complainant
found his testimony convincing and creditworthy. After
appreciating the materials tendered in the case, the learned
Magistrate concluded that the accused is guilty of the
offence imputed. The finding entered by the learned
Magistrate on those aspects stand approved by the Sessions
Judge in the appeal. I do not find any circumstance
whatsoever to interfere with the finding so arrived by the
Crl.R.P.No.651 of 2001
3
two courts below. Having regard to the limited scope of
revisional jurisdiction wherein re-appreciation of the
evidence is permissible only if it is shown that the finding
entered is perverse on the materials produced, it is needless
to say there is no scope for interference in the present
revision, with respect to the finding found by the inferior
courts leading to the conviction of the accused for the
offence with which he was convicted. Prosecution was
initiated in 1998 that too in respect of a cheque on its
dishonour for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Till date, it is reported
that no sum under the cheque had been paid by the accused
despite suffering conviction concurrently before the two
courts. The accused is directed to pay compensation of
Rs.14,000/- with default term of imprisonment for two
months, and the entire sum, if realised, shall be paid to the
complainant. Sentence imposed by the learned Sessions
Judge till rising of the court is not altered. The accused is
directed to pay compensation within two months from the
date of this order. Accused shall appear and his sureties
Crl.R.P.No.651 of 2001
4
shall produce him before the Judicial First Class magistrate,
Kolenchery on 1.6.2009 and the learned Magistrate shall
execute the sentence as directed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.
bkn/-