IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 219 of 2009()
1. BABU THOMAS, EXECTUVE DIRECTOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HUDCO, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SMT.M.A.ZOHRA
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :28/01/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.NOS.219/09, 220/09,221/09,
222/09,223/09 & 224/09
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated 28th January 2009
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the third accused
and first respondent the complainant in C.C.23/2001,
24/2001, 25/2001, 5/2003, 6/2003 and 7/2003 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV,
Thiruvananthapuram. First respondent is a Government
company and first accused a private limited company.
Third accused and second accused are respectively the
Director and Managing Director of the Company. Company
availed a loan of Rs.One crore from first respondent
agreeing to repay the same with interest. Towards
repayment of the amount Exts.P1, P8, P15,P22, P29 and
P36 cheques respectively for Rs.25,00,000/-,
25,00,000/-, 25,00,000/-, 25,00,000/-, 15,00,000/- and
25,00,000/- were issued drawn in the account of the
company and maintained in Panavila Branch of Federal
Bank. All the cheques were dishonoured. In spite of
the notice issued to the accused as provided under
CRL.R.P.NOS.219/09, 220/09,221/09,
222/09,223/09 & 224/09
2
Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act they did
not pay. Alleging that the three accused committed
offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ,
complaints were filed which were taken cognizance by the
Magistrate. All the accused pleaded not guilty. All the
accused together defended the case. All of them were
convicted. They together challenged the conviction and
sentence before Additional Sessions court,
Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.Nos.539/2003,540/2003,
541/2003, 542/2003, 543/2003 and 544/2003. Learned
Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and
modified the sentence. Accused 1 and 2 together
challenged the conviction and sentence before this court
in Crl.R.P.2875/2008, 2876/2008, 2881/2008, 2886/2008
2887/2008 and 2890/2008. Revision petitioner did not
join the other accused while challenging the conviction
in those revision petitions. As per order dated
18/11/2008 revision petitions were disposed confirming
the conviction but modifying the sentence as against
second accused to a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in
default simple imprisonment for two months in each in
all the cases. Third accused now filed the revision
petitions challenging conviction and sentence.
CRL.R.P.NOS.219/09, 220/09,221/09,
222/09,223/09 & 224/09
3
2. Learned counsel appearing for revision
petitioner and first respondent were heard.
3. Learned counsel submitted that revision
petitioner was kicked out of the company by the Managing
Director and proceedings were initiated for realisation
of the amount due from the company against the properties
of the revision petitioner and in such circumstances
sentence may be modified as has been done in the revision
petitions filed by other accused. Learned counsel
appearing for first respondent pointed out that
conviction was already confirmed by this court in the
revision petitions filed by the other accused and there
is no reason to interfere with the conviction.
4. In view of the confirmation of the conviction
and modification of the sentence as against second
accused Managing Director of the company, while
confirming the conviction revision petitioner is entitled
to get the modification of the sentence as has been done
in the other revisions filed by second accused.
5. In such circumstances, all revisions are to be
allowed in part. Conviction of revision petitioner for
the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act is confirmed. Sentence as against the revision
CRL.R.P.NOS.219/09, 220/09,221/09,
222/09,223/09 & 224/09
4
petitioner in all the cases is modified to a fine of
Rs.10,000/- each and in default simple imprisonment for
two months in each. On realisation of fine, it is to be
paid to first respondent as compensation under Section
357(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision
petitioner is granted three time to pay the fine.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.