IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 942 of 2008()
1. ANNAMMA MATHEW, MEMANA VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. ROYAL MATHEW, RESIDING AT
3. NOBLE MATHEW, RESIDING
4. NIZZI MATHEW, RESIDING AT
Vs
1. A.SUBRAHAMANIA PILLAI, PULIMMOOTTIL
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :06/01/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No.942 of 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
6.01.2010
ORDER
The complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated as C.C.No.334 of
2000 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta
involving a cheque for Rs.1 lakh challenges the sentence
imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast
Track -II, Pathanamthitta in Crl.Appeal No.10 of 2003
confirming the sentence of fine of Rs.50,000/- imposed by
the trial court. According to the revision petitioner, the
courts below ought to have directed the fine amount to be
paid as compensation to the revision petitioner.
2. I am not inclined to accede to the above submission,
because admittedly the revision petitioner did not
challenge the sentence imposed by the trial court. It is not
disputed that he was heard by the lower appellate court in
Crl. R.P. No. 942 of 2008
2
the appeal filed by the accused against the conviction and
sentence. He could have preferred a revision before the
Sessions Court against the sentence passed by the trial
court. Having not done so, he cannot now challenge the
sentence passed by the lower appellate court. As the
revision petitioner failed to assail the sentence passed by
the trial court, he is precluded from challenging the
sentence passed by the lower Appellate Court. This revision
is accordingly dismissed.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj