IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3234 of 2008()
1. K.R.HIRANMAI DEVI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NADAR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.MOHANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :19/09/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRL.R.P.NO. 3234 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner was convicted concurrently for the offence under
Section 138 of N.I.Act. Learned Magistrate sentenced her to
simple imprisonment for four months in addition to a
compensation of Rs.1,58,000/-. In appeal, learned Sessions
Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court
and a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment
for three months. The revision is filed challenging the conviction
and sentence.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The
argument of learned counsel is that the cheque was not issued
towards the repayment of an existing liability and courts below
did not properly appreciate the evidence and in such
circumstances, conviction and sentence is not sustainable. It
was also argued that in any case the sentence awarded is
excessive and considering the financial conditions of petitioner,
reasonable time of six months is to be granted for payment of the
fine amount.
3. The learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge, on
CRRP 3234/2008 2
appreciation of evidence of first respondent as PW1 with Exts.P1
to P8 found that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by petitioner towards
discharge of pre-existing liability and when the cheque was
presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for want of
sufficient funds. Petitioner, when questioned under Section 313
of Code of Criminal Procedure contended that she borrowed only
Rs.25,000/- and at that time issued a blank cheque and making
use of the blank cheque, Ext.P1 cheque was created and got it
dishonoured and complaint was filed and therefore she has not
committed the offence. Learned Magistrate and learned
Sessions Judge found that there is no reason to disbelieve the
evidence of PW1 and the case of petitioner that she had issued a
blank cheque is not substantiated.
4. On going through the judgments of courts below, I do not
find any reason to interfere with the factual findings of courts
below that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of
existing liability.
5. The fact that Ext.P1 cheque was presented within the
statutory period and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient
funds and first respondent sent a notice demanding the amount
covered by the cheque within the statutory period and petitioner
CRRP 3234/2008 3
did not pay the amount in spite of the notice are conclusively
proved by evidence. Therefore conviction of petitioner for the
offence under Section 138 of N.I Act is perfectly correct and
warrants no interference.
6. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence.
Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment
till rising of court in addition to a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- which
exactly is the amount covered by the cheque. In such
circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
sentence also. Learned counsel then submitted that because of
financial conditions petitioner may be granted six months time to
pay the fine amount. Considering the circumstances pointed out
by learned counsel, petitioner is granted six months time to pay
the fine amount.
Revision is disposed, confirming the conviction and
sentence but granting six months time to pay the fine amount.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-