IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3802 of 2008()
1. P.D.JOHN @ JOHNAPPAN, PADINJAREKKARA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. C.V.FRANCIS, CHETTAKKATTU HOUSE, VEROOR
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :25/11/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRL.R.P.NO. 3802 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent
the complainant in C.C.5 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate-II, Kottayam. Petitioner was convicted for the
offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the
conviction before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl.A.716 of 2007.
Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence,
confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to
imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and
in default, simple imprisonment for six months with a direction
to pay the fine on realisation to second respondent as
compensation. Revision petition is filed challenging the
conviction.
2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was
heard. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner is not
challenging either the conviction or the sentence and he may be
granted six months time to pay the fine.
3. Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge
appreciated the evidence of PW1 the second respondent and
CRRP 3802/2008 2
based on Ext.P1 to P6 and evidence of PW1 found that Ext.P1
cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally recoverable
debt viz, the amount borrowed by revision petitioner. It was also
found that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient
funds and second respondent has complied with all the
statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of
N.I.Act. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under
Section 138 of N.I.Act, in such circumstances, is perfectly legal.
4. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned
Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising
of court and a fine, which was for the amount covered by the
dishonoured cheque with a default sentence. In such
circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
sentence also.
5. Revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted six
months time from today to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to
appear before learned Magistrate on 26.5.2009.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-