IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 159 of 2000()
1. S.SUSGATHAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VAIDYANADHAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :24/09/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.159 OF 2000
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008
O R D E R
The revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced for
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act on the allegation that he issued a cheque for
Rs.75,000/- to the complainant for the discharge of a legally
enforceable debt and that on presentation, that cheque was
dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund and that on notice of
intimation of such dishonour, the accused did not pay the
amount covered by the cheque. The sentence imposed on him by
the court of first instance was modified by the court of session by
reducing the sentence of imprisonment to be for 3 months.
2. The court of first instance heard the version of the
complainant as PW1 and the Manager of the Bank as PW2.
Exts.P1 to P4 were taken on record which include the cheque,
notice of return and other relevant materials in terms of the
statutory provision. The defence version projected under
Crl.RP.159/00
Page numbers
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that the cheque was issued as a security
for the amount borrowed under the promissory note. But no
material was brought out to prove it. I do not find any error or
illegality in the appreciation of evidence, in the resultant
findings of the courts below and in the orders holding the
petitioner guilty. However, having regard to the nature of the
transaction, the sentence calls for interference.
In the result, in modification of the sentence imposed by
the courts below, it is ordered that:
(i) The revision is allowed in part.
(ii) The finding of guilt and the conviction are confirmed.
(iii) The sentence imposed by the courts below on the
revision petitioner is vacated. In supersession thereof, the
revision petitioner/accused is sentenced:
(a) to undergo imprisonment till rising of the
court, for a day;
Crl.RP.159/00
Page numbers
(b) to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of
that, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days; and
(c) to pay compensation of Rs.95,000/- to the
complainant. Any amount already deposited in terms
of the interim orders will be given due credit to
against the compensation.
(d) Fine, on recovery, is to be released to the
complainant as compensation.
The learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps for
execution of the modified sentence hereby imposed. The revision
petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before
the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittur on 28-11-2008 to
suffer the sentence, with proof of having satisfied the payment of
compensation. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate shall take
necessary action against the revision petitioner and his sureties
Crl.RP.159/00
Page numbers
under Section 446 Crl.P.C., if he does not appear as directed
above.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.
Crl.RP.159/00
Page numbers
=======================
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J
Crl.R.P.No.159/00
O R D E R
24TH SEPTEMBER, 2008.
=======================