IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1927 of 2010()
1. BABU.V., S/O.VARGHESE, DEFEDAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.VINOD, T.C.VIHAR, T.C.NO.21/209 (2),
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :06/07/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl. R.P.No.1927 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010.
O R D E R
The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of
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 is that the accused/revision
petitioner, towards the discharge of a debt due to the
complainant, issued a cheque dated 6.3.2002 for a sum of
Rs.80,000/-, which when presented for encashment dishonoured
as there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the
accused and the cheque amount was not repaid inspite of a
formal demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has
committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. With the above allegation, the complainant
initially approached the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-
II, Trivandrum, where upon cognizance was taken and instituted
Crl. R.P.No.1927 of 2010
2
S.T.No.523/04. Subsequently, the case was made over to the
Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Trivandrum, wherein
the case was renumbered as S.T.No.255/05. During the trial of
the case, PW1 was examined from the side of the complainant
and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. No evidence either oral or
documentary produced from the side of the defence. On the
basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the trial
court has found that the cheque in question was issued by the
revision petitioner/accused for the purpose of discharging his
debt due to the complainant. Thus accordingly the court found
that, the complainant has established the case against the
accused/revision petitioner and consequently found that the
accused is guilty and thus convicted him u/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the
revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months
and to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- and in default in paying
the compensation revision petitioner is directed to undergo
simple imprisonment for 2 months. In appeal, by judgment dated
13.8.2009 in Crl.A.No.107/07, the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge
Crl. R.P.No.1927 of 2010
3
Fast Track (Ad hoc)-II, Trivandrum, while confirming the
conviction, the sentence is modified and reduced till rising of the
curt and the order to pay compensation and default sentence
were confirmed. It is the above order of conviction and sentence
challenged in this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts
below.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted
that, some breathing time may be granted to the revision
petitioner to receive the sentence and to pay compensation
amount.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in
the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be
considered favourably but subject to slight enhancement in the
amount of compensation.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming
the conviction, recorded by the courts below against the revision
petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly,
Crl. R.P.No.1927 of 2010
4
while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment, as modified and
ordered by the lower appellate court, the revision petitioner is
directed to pay a sum of Rs.87,500/- as compensation to the
complainant u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C., within 3 months from today
and in default in paying the compensation, the revision petitioner
is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4
months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear
before the trial court on 6.10.2010 to receive the sentence and to
pay the compensation amount. In case any failure on the part of
the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as
directed above and in paying the compensation amount, the trial
court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the
revision petitioner and to execute the sentence awarded against
the revision petitioner and for realisation of the compensation
amount ordered.
Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
ami/