IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 336 of 2009()
1. K.C.SCARIA @ JOY, KANNAKKERIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MATHEW JOSEPH, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :04/02/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.NO.336 OF 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated 4th February 2009
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the accused and
first respondent, the complainant in C.C.625/2003
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,
Kottayam. Revision petitioner was convicted and
sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner
challenged the conviction was before Additional
Sessions court, Kottayam in Crl.A.6/2005. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of
the evidence, confirmed the conviction and
modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising
of court and compensation of Rs.85,000/-. Revision
is filed challenging the conviction and sentence.
2. Learned counsel appearing for revision
petitioner and first respondent who appeared on
getting a notice in the petition to condone the
delay, were heard.
CRRP 336/09
2
3. Learned counsel appearing for revision
petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence
on record and the concurrent findings of fact
revision petitioner is not challenging the
conviction or the sentence and revision petitioner
may be granted four months time to pay the
compensation. Learned counsel appearing for first
respondent objected to the granting of time
submitting that the complaint was filed as early as
in 2003.
4. On hearing the learned counsel and going
through the judgments of the courts below, I find
no reason to interfere with the conviction or the
sentence. Evidence establish that revision
petitioner borrowed Rs.85,000/- from first
respondent and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its
repayment. It was dishonoured for want of
sufficient funds, when presented for encashment. It
is also established that first respondent had
complied with all statutory formalities provided
under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable
CRRP 336/09
3
Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction
of revision petitioner for the offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is
perfectly legal.
5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge
modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising
of court and compensation and that too only for
the amount covered by the dishonourned cheque. In
such circumstances, sentence also does not warrant
any interference.
6. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner
is granted four months time to pay the
compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to
appear before Judicial First Class
Magistrate-II, Kottayam on 4/6/2009.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.