IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 1236 of 2006()
1. A.P.VIJAYAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MOHAMMED, S/O.RAJAB,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :03/07/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 1236 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2006
O R D E R
This revision petition is filed by the complainant in a
prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act aggrieved by the
reduction of the sentence imposed and the direction for payment of
compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.
2. The Registry was directed to verify whether the accused has
preferred any revision against the impugned appellate judgment. It is
reported that no revision is preferred by the accused. The lower
appellate court had reduced the sentence from S.I. for a period of 10
months to S.I. for a period of two months. The cheque was for
Rs.62,000/- The trial court directed payment of compensation of
Rs.1,20,000/- whereas the appellate court reduced the compensation
to the actual cheque amount i.e. 62,000/- The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the appellate court did not invoke its appellate
jurisdiction properly.
Crl.R.P.No. 1236 of 2006 2
3. I must alertly remind myself that I am called upon to invoke the
revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. The accused has
not chosen to challenge the impugned sentence, which means that he will
have to undergo substantive sentence of imprisonment of two months and
to pay the actual cheque amount as compensation. If he prefers a revision
petition and claims reduction of the substantive sentence, certainly the
petitioner will be entitled to contend that the modification of the sentence
was not justified. But in the present proceedings I am not satisfied – the
accused having been sentenced to a substantive sentence of imprisonment
for two months, that the impugned sentence or the direction for payment of
compensation deserves interference in this revision filed by the petitioner.
The challenge cannot in these circumstances succeed. Needless to say, if a
revision petition is preferred by the accused, the petitioner will be entitled
to complain to this court that the appellate court has not done justice to him
in directing payment of the cheque amount of Rs.62,000/- only after a
period of about a decade.
4. With these observations, this revision petition is dismissed.
Crl.R.P.No. 1236 of 2006 3
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm