High Court Kerala High Court

Anilamma Puthuparambil vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Anilamma Puthuparambil vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3953 of 2008()


1. ANILAMMA PUTHUPARAMBIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. KOTTAYAM CO-OPERAIVE URBAN BANK LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.N.SASIDHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :05/12/2008

 O R D E R
                 M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                   ------------------------------------------
                    CRL.R.P. NO. 3953 OF 2008
                   ------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008


                               O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the accused and second

respondent the complainant in C.C.75 of 2005 on the file of

Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kottayam. Petitioner was

convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction and

sentence before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl. Appeal 57 of

2008. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of

evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to

imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation of

Rs.35,000/-, the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque.

Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence.

2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was

heard.

3. Learned counsel did not challenge the conviction and

only sought three months time to pay the compensation as

directed by the learned Sessions Judge.

4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through

CRRP3953/08 2

the judgments of the Courts below I find no reason to interfere

with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that

revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards discharge of

the existing liability and the cheque was dishonoured for want

of sufficient funds and in spite of notice, revision petitioner did

not pay the amount and second respondent had complied with

all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142

of N.I. Act. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under

section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal.

5. Then the question is with regard to the sentence.

Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment

till rising of Court in addition to compensation which was almost

for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such

circumstances no interference is warranted in the sentence also.

Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three

months time from today to pay the compensation as awarded by

the learned Sessions Judge. Revision petitioner is directed to

appear before the Magistrate on 6.3.2009.

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
Okb/-