E.V.Augusthi vs Sunny Kuruvilla on 2 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 384 of 2009()


1. E.V.AUGUSTHI, S/O.VARKEY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUNNY KURUVILLA
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS STATE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :02/02/2009

 O R D E R
                 M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

              -------------------------------------------------

                    CRL.R.P.No. 384 OF 2009

              --------------------------------------------------

             Dated this the 2ndday of February, 2009


                               O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent

the complainant in C.C. 532 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Erattupetta. Revision petitioner was convicted

for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conviction was confirmed and sentence was modified to

imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in

default simple imprisonment for one month by Additional

Sessions Judge, Kottayam. Revision is filed challenging the

conviction.

2. In view of the evidence on record and the concurrent

findings of fact, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner

submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the

conviction but he may be granted time to pay the fine. On going

through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to

interfere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish

that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards repayment

CRRP 384/2009
2

of the loan of Rs.30,000/- obtained earlier from first respondent.

It is also proved that the cheque was dishonoured for want of

sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all

statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for

the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is

perfectly legal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the

sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine, which was

only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such

circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the sentence

also.

Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four

months time to pay the fine as directed by the Sessions Judge.

Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Erattupetta on 2.6.2009.

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

okb