IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2980 of 2006()
1. V.VENUGOPAL, AGED YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.K.SHARAFUDHEEN, AGED YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
For Petitioner :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/08/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 2980 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2006
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict
of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138
of the N.I. Act.
2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 18,000/- The
signature in the cheque is not disputed. The short contention raised
by the petitioner is that the cheque was not issued to the
complainant, but to his brother; not for the discharge of any legally
enforcible debt/liability, but as security. The complainant examined
himself as PW1 and the Manager of the drawee bank as PW2.
Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. A witness was examined on the side
of the accused. He is the brother of the complainant, to whom the
cheque was allegedly handed over. He did not support the defence
case.
3. The courts below, in these circumstances, concurrently
Crl.R.P.No. 2980 of 2006 2
came to the conclusion that the complainant has succeeded in
establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138
of the N.I. Act. The appellate court indulgently modified the sentence
and the petitioner now faces a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court
and to pay the actual cheque amount of Rs.18,000/- as compensation and in
default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month.
4. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the
petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the
learned counsel for the petitioner only prays that the petitioner may be
granted some further time for making the payment of compensation and
thus avoid the default sentence. No other contentions are raised. Having
gone through the impugned judgments and after discussions at the Bar, I
reckon that as an informed and fair stand taken by the petitioner. I am
satisfied that the verdict of guilty and conviction are absolutely justified and
unexceptionable. The sentence imposed is also absolutely reasonable and
does not call for interference at all.
5. However it can be directed that the petitioner shall appear
before the trial court on 31.10.2006 to serve the impugned sentence.
Crl.R.P.No. 2980 of 2006 3
Till then the sentence shall not be executed. If the petitioner does not so
appear, the learned Magistrate shall thereafter take necessary steps to
execute the impugned sentence.
6. This revision petition is hence dismissed with the above
observations/directions.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm