IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1147 of 2010()
1. SANJU KUMAR @ KANNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. K.P.DEVARAJAN, RAJESH BHAVAN,
3. R.MANIAMMA, W/O.K.P.DEVARAJAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB GEORGE (PATHAZHAKKUZHIKAL)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :17/05/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
----------------------------------------
Crl. R.P. No. 1147 OF 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated 17th Day of May, 2010
ORDER
This Crl.Revision Petition is preferred by the accused
in a prosecution for the offence punishable under section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. The allegation against the accused/revision
petitioner is that he had borrowed an amount of
Rs.35,000/- from the complainant one Devarajan, who is
no more and in discharge of such liability, the revision
petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.35,000/- which when
presented for encashment was dishonoured, hence
instituted the above complaint. During the trial,
Maniyamma Devarajan, wife of the said Devarajan was
examined as PW1 who was prosecuting the complaint
and produced Exts.P1 to P6 documents. From the side
of the accused, himself was examined as DW1 and
marked Exts.D1 and D2. The trial court found that the
revision petitioner/accused is guilty under section 138 of
CRL.R.P. No.1147/2010
-:2:-
the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a
fine of Rs.35,000/- and the default sentence is fixed as
simple imprisonment for three months.
3. Both the conviction and sentence were challenged
by the revision petitioner by filing Crl.A.No.113/2009 and
by judgment dated 25.11.2009, the Sessions Court partly
allowed the appeal by confirming the conviction and the
sentence was modified and he was directed to a pay only
a fine of 35,000/- and in default of payment of fine he
was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months. It was also ordered that if the amount of fine
is realised, the same shall be paid to the legal heirs of
the deceased complainant.
4. The present Crl.Revision Petition is filed
challenging the judgments of the lower courts. There is no
dispute regarding the transaction claimed by the
complainant. But according to the accused, he had
received only Rs.15,000/- from the husband of PW1
CRL.R.P. No.1147/2010
-:3:-
and paid back Rs.10,000/-. The Trial court as well as the
lower appellate court has specifically found that though
the revision petitioner/accused has taken such a
contention, to substantiate such contention, no evidence
was adduced. The revision petitioner miserably failed to
make out any case and to discredit the testimony of PW1.
As the accused has admitted the financial transaction,
execution and the issuance of the cheque and when the
courts below have concurrently found that the
complainant has succeeded in establishing the case
against the accused, I find no merit in the Crl.Revision
Petition.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that breathing time may be granted to make
the payment of the fine amount. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that two
months’ time can be granted to the revision petitioner to deposit
the fine amount.
In the result, this Crl. R.P is disposed of confirming the
CRL.R.P. No.1147/2010
-:4:-
conviction recorded by both the courts below and confirming the
sentence of fine awarded by the lower appellate court and the
petitioner is further directed to deposit the fine amount within two
months from today and if there is any default on the part of the
petitioner in making the deposit, within the stipulated time, the trial
court is free to take coercive steps for executing the sentence and
realising the fine amount.
The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN,
JUDGE
kvm/-
CRL.R.P. No.1147/2010
-:5:-
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
O.P.No.
JUDGMENT
Dated:..