IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2978 of 2009()
1. GOPAKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHLOROPLAST, AKANAD KARA,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :30/09/2009
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No.2978 of 2009.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the accused in
ST.No.1859/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the
First Class, Perumbavoor. The first respondent herein
prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After due
trial, the learned Magistrate arrived a conclusion of guilt.
Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted under
Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month with direction
to pay Rs.10,268/- as compensation to the first respondent
under Sec.357(3) Criminal Procedure Code.
2. In appeal, the conviction was confirmed. The
substantive sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment
for 15 days. The order to pay compensation was confirmed.
Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the
Crl.R.P.No.2978 of 2009.
-: 2 :-
above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this
revision petition was filed.
3. Having heard either side and perusing the
judgments of the courts below, I find that the first
respondent who was examined as Pw1 supported by Exts.P1
to P9 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner
owed a sum of Rs.10,268/- to the first respondent and in
discharge of the said liability Ext.P2 series, one cheque for
Rs.5,268/- and another for Rs.5,000/- were issued and that
when Ext.P2 series cheques were sent for collection, those
were returned bounced for insufficient funds as evidenced
by Exts.P3 and P4 series of memos. Though the first
respondent caused a lawyer notice, copy of which is marked
as Ext.P5 demanding discharge of liability and it was
acknowledged by the revision petitioner as evidenced by
Ext.P6, the liability was not discharged. The courts below
had correctly appreciated the evidence, I find that the
conviction entered into by the courts below is based upon
Crl.R.P.No.2978 of 2009.
-: 3 :-
supporting evidence and requires no interference.
4. According to the learned counsel, the revision
petitioner was a business man and because of the failure in
his business he has to face the prosecution and that the
revision petitioner would pay the compensation amount.
Taking note of the above circumstance, I find that the
revision petitioner is entitled to leniency in sentence and
that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court
would meet the ends of justice. The order to pay
compensation to the first respondent with default clause is
confirmed. The revision petitioner is granted two months
time for payment of the compensation. Till payment of
compensation, the bond executed by him would remain in
force. The lower court see the execution of sentence after
the period granted and report compliance.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
Kvs/-