IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 516 of 2000()
1. C.C.RAJAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MUKKANAN MOHAMMED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH
For Respondent :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
Dated :30/07/2007
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY, J.
-------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.516 OF 2000
-------------------------
Dated 30th July, 2007
ORDER
On the allegation that the cheque issued by the
petitioner for Rs.20,000/= was dishonoured for insufficiency
of funds, first respondent filed a complaint under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial court.
The defence of the accused was that he has not issued the
cheque even though it was from his account maintaining for
`Kavitha Printers’. It is also submitted that his brother
Phalgunan might have issued the cheque to the proprietor of
Shalimar Paper Mart and that was misused by the complainant.
Therefore, a definite defence was taken by the revision
petitioner before the court. But, the revision petitioner
did not adduce any evidence. He did not even examine his
brother or disputing the signature file petition to send the
cheque for opinion of handwriting expert. In the above
circumstances, after considering the evidence of complainant,
the court found that the cheque issued by the petitioner was
dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. It is also noticed
by the trial court that reply notice was not produced. In
the appeal proceedings notice was produced, but, that was not
accepted by the court. I am of the opinion that even though
Crl.R.P.516/2000 2
reply was produced, since the contentions were not proved,
there is no purpose in remanding the matter as he had
ample opportunity to examine Phalgunan and also opportunity
to prove that the signature in the cheque was forged.
But, no effort was made by him. Whereas, complainant has
asserted that the petitioner has executed the cheque in
presence of his household. In the above circumstances,
concurrent conviction made by the courts below cannot be
interfered. With regard to the sentence, six months
imprisonment was imposed by the trial court. In appeal,
sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for two months.
First respondent is interested in getting back his money
than sending the revision petitioner in prison. Taking all
these facts and circumstances, I reduce the sentence to
simple imprisonment for three days and a compensation of
Rs.25,000/=. If the compensation amount is realised,
Rs.20,000/= shall be given to the complainant. In default
of payment of compensation, petitioner has to suffer
imprisonment for two months. Since now Section 138 matter
is compoundable, I give two months time to settle the
matter. If the matter is compounded and settled between
the parties, they can approach this court for recording the
settlement. Otherwise, the modified sentence shall be
executed by the trial court. This order is certified to
Crl.R.P.516/2000 3
the trial court for implementation after two months.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
J.B.KOSHY
Judge
tks