IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1895 of 2010()
1. BABU.K., S/O.K.C.THOMAS, KIZHAKKE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL &
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :01/07/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-----------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1895 of 2010
---------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of July 2010
O R D E R
The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as
he is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence
imposed by the courts below.
2. The case of the complainant, a co-operative bank,
is that the revision petitioner availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/-
and towards the discharge of the outstanding liability, the
accused issued a cheque dated 4.5.2006 for an amount of
Rs.85,000/-, which when presented for encashment
dishonoured for the reason that there is no sufficient fund
in the account maintained by the revision
petitioner/accused and according to the complainant though
a formal notice was sent demanding the accused to pay the
Crl.R.P.No.1895 of 2010
: 2 :
amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, the same was
not paid and hence the accused has committed the offence
punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. With the said
allegation the complainant approached the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta and instituted
S.T.No.1323/2006. During the course of the trial, PW1 was
examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked from the side of
the complainant. On conviction, the trial court sentenced
the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for
3 months and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.85,000/- as
fine and in default he is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for one month. It is also ordered that on
realization of the fine amount, the same shall be given to
the complainant under Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. Challenging
the above order of conviction and sentence though an
appeal was filed, by judgment dated 30.1.2010 in
Crl.A.No.96/2008, the lower appellate court allowed the
appeal only in part confirming the conviction but the
Crl.R.P.No.1895 of 2010
: 3 :
sentence was modified. Accordingly, the sentence of
imprisonment ordered by the trial court reduced till the
rising of the court and the lower appellate court converted
the fine amount into compensation under Sec.357(3) of
Cr.P.C. and the default sentence is fixed as simple
imprisonment for 3 months. It is the above conviction and
sentence challenged in this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that a breathing time may be granted to the
revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount.
According to me, the said submission can be considered
favourably.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of
confirming the conviction recorded by the courts below
against the revision petitioner under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act
and while confirming the sentence of imprisonment as
modified and ordered by the lower appellate court and also
confirming the order for compensation and the default
Crl.R.P.No.1895 of 2010
: 4 :
sentence, the revision petitioner is directed to make the
payment within 3 months from today. Accordingly, the
revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial
court on 2nd September, 2010 to receive the sentence and
to pay the compensation amount as directed by this court.
In case any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in
appearing before the court below as directed above and in
making the deposit of compensation amount, the trial court
is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the
revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and
direction for compensation awarded against the revision
petitioner.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
Jvt