IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1650 of 2006()
1. MANI.K.MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THRESSIAMMA JOSE, W/O.JOSEPH,
3. SIBY.P.JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, DO. DO.
4. SIJI THANKACHAN, D/O. DO. DO. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
For Respondent :SRI.P.BABU KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :03/10/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
CRIMINAL.R.P. NO. 1650 OF 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008.
O R D E R
This criminal revision is preferred against the conviction
and sentence passed in C.C.1077/99 and also confirmation of
the said conviction and modification of the imprisonment
portion from four months to one till raising of the Court. The
criminal revision petition was proceeded against on a
complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act on the ground that he had
borrowed a sum of Rs.2 lacks and issued a cheque towards
discharge of the liability which when presented for
encashment returned on account of insufficiency of funds and
thereafter on compliance of statutory requirements under the
Act the complaint had been preferred.
2. In the trial Court PWs.1 to 3 were examined and
Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. On appreciation of the materials
the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty and
convicted him but conviction was sustained by the appellate
Court as well. Ext.P1 is the cheque. PW1 was examined. He
Cr.R.P. 1650 OF 2006
-:2:-
had proved about the factum of issuance of cheque and
dishonour of cheque. Thereafter a notice was issued in the
form of Ext.P4 and it was returned as unclaimed. Though
PW1 has been cross-examined, it is stated that nothing is
brought out to discard his evidence. During the pendency of
the case the defacto complainant died and his legal
representatives were brought on record. The defence of the
revision petitioner was that he had only borrowed a sum of
Rs.21,000/- and had issued a signed blank cheque and that
had been utilized for the purpose of creating the document to
initiate the case. Both the Courts below on exhaustive
analysis held that there is sufficient evidence to prove the
issuance of cheque, the dishonour as well as the statutory
compliance of the other requirements envisaged under the
Act and thereafter proceeded to convict the accused and
sentenced him. Therefore I do not find any illegality,
irregularity or perversity made by the Courts below in
Cr.R.P. 1650 OF 2006
-:3:-
arriving at that decision. So the finding on conviction is only
to be affirmed.
3. So far as the sentencing portion is concerned, the
trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for four
months and also to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs u/s 357(3)
Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
two months. The appellate Court modified that sentence to
one of imprisonment till raising of the Court and to pay a
compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the legal representatives and
in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
Learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays for
indulgence and request for some time to make the payment.
Considering the totality I feel that the sentence requires
modification and therefore I modify the sentence as one for
imprisonment till raising of the Court and to pay a fine of
Rs.2 lakhs and on deposit to disburse the said fine amount in
favour of the legal representatives of the deceased
Cr.R.P. 1650 OF 2006
-:4:-
complainant. In case of default of deposit of fine amount
the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of two months. The amount that is deposited at the
time of admission by the revision petitioner shall be
disbursed to the legal representatives of the claimant on
appropriate application.
The Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-