IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4015 of 2008()
1. P.RAVINDRAN, S/O.PONNAN, AGED 44,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.BASANTH, S/O.NANNIKUTTY AMMA,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :22/01/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.NO.4015 OF 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated 222nd January 2009
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the accused and first
respondent, the complainant in C.C.79/2003 on the file
of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam.
Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and to
pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and in default
simple imprisonment for one month. Revision petitioner
challenged the conviction before Sessions
court,Thrissur in Crl.A.239/2006. Learned Additional
Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence
confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed
the appeal. It is challenged in this revision.
2. Learned counsel appearing for revision
petitioner was heard.
3. Learned counsel appearing for revision is
challenging the conviction only on the ground that
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnumkulam has no
CRRP 4015/08
2
jurisdiction to try the offence. Argument of learned
counsel is that as admitted by the first respondent his
permanent address is at Madras and transaction had taken
place at Madras and therefore, Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Kunnumkulam has no jurisdiction to try the
offence. Learned counsel made available copy of
deposition of first respondent as PW1. Evidence of PW1
shows that he admitted that his permanent address is at
Madras. But it is his specific case that during the
period when Ext.P1 cheque was issued, he was residing at
Guruvayur at his daughter’s house. More over, it is
specific case of revision petitioner that Ext.P1 cheque
was issued by revision petitioner from his house at
Palakkad and first respondent presented the cheque at
the place where he was residing at that time and when it
was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds it was
demanded by sending notice from there. When one of the
five components for constituting an offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act had taken
place within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Kunnumkulam, learned Magistrate has
definitely the jurisdiction to try the offence. Hence, I
find no reason to interfere with the conviction on that
CRRP 4015/08
3
ground.
4. Judgments of courts below establish that
revision petitioner borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from first
respondent for his film business and subsequently
towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque which was
dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, when
presented for encashment. It is also proved that first
respondent had complied with all statutory formalities
provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction of
revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal.
5. Then the question is regarding the sentence.
Learned Magistrate awarded a substantive sentence of
simple imprisonment for one year in addition to
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. So long as the
sentence is not altered or modified against the
interest of first respondent, it is not necessary to
issue notice to first respondent. As per sentence
awarded by courts below first respondent is entitled to
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Considering the entire
facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice
will be met, if sentence is modified to imprisonment
CRRP 4015/08
4
till rising of court and fine with a direction to pay
compensation on realisation of fine to first respondent.
6. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of
revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence is
modified. Revision petitioner is sentenced to
imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of
Rs.3,10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for
three months. On realisation of fine Rs.3,00,000/- is
to be paid to first respondent as compensation under
Section 357(1)(b) of Code of Civil Procedure.
Revision petitioner is granted two months time to
pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear
before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam on
23/3/2009.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.