IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1786 of 2010()
1. CHELLAPPAN N.C., NEDUMCHIRAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :18/06/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1786 of 2010
-----------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010.
O R D E R
The accused/revision petitioner challenges his
conviction and sentence u/s.138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
2. The case of the complainant is that the accused
availed a trade loan of Rs.50,000/- from the Bank and
he defaulted the repayment and as on 28.07.2006, there
was a balance of Rs.47,077/- and towards discharge of
the said liability, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque,
which when presented for encashment, dishonoured for
want of sufficient money in the account maintained by
the accused. Though a formal notice was sent, no
payment was made. Thus according to the complainant,
the accused committed the offence u/s.138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. During the trial, one
witness was examined for the complainant and Exts.P1
to P6 were produced and marked. Ext.D1 passbook was
produced from the side of the defence towards
Crl.R.P.No.1786/2010
2
evidence, though no witness was examined. On the basis
of the materials on record, trial court found that the
revision petitioner is guilty of the said offence and
accordingly he is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay
fine of Rs.10,000/- and the default sentence fixed as
one month simple imprisonment. By judgment dated
30.06.2009 in Crl.Appeal No.132/2008, the Court of
Sessions, Kottayam dismissed the appeal, confirming the
conviction and sentence. The appellate Court has
specifically stated that a sum of Rs.26,014/- shall be
given credit towards the loan arrears.
3. The above conviction and sentence are
challenged in this revision petition.
4. I have heard Mr.K.M.Varghese, learned counsel
for the revision petitioner and Mr.T.A. Shaji, Standing
Counsel for the respondent Bank.
Crl.R.P.No.1786/2010
3
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the entire amount has already been credited but
the payment made by the revision petitioner was not
considered by the trial court but the lower appellate
Court has already directed the Bank/complainant to give
credit of the amount paid. It is also the submission of
the learned counsel that the revision petitioner is a
cardiac patient and he is undergoing treatment. Thus
according to the learned counsel, lenient view may be
taken in the matter of sentence and the compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank
submitted that he received a certificate issued from
the Manager Gandhinagar Branch of the Kottayam District
Co-operative Bank stating that the entire loan amount
(Traders Account No.223) availed from the said branch
by Mr.Chellappan cleared and loan account is closed. If
that be so, I am of the view that without going into
the merits of the case, this revision petition can be
disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision
Crl.R.P.No.1786/2010
4
petitioner u/s.138 of the N.I.Act and reducing the
sentence of imprisonment till raising of the Court and
deleting the sentence of fine ordered by the trial
court as approved by the lower appellate court.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed
of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner
u/s.138 of the N.I. Act as recorded by the trial court
as well as the lower appellate court. He is sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment till raising of the
court and as the bank has already admitted that the
entire loan transaction is closed, the sentence of fine
imposed against the revision petitioner is set aside.
Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to
appear before the trial court on 19.07.2010 to receive
the sentence of imprisonment.
Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN,
JUDGE.
ss/.