Haridasan vs K.V.Mahendrakumar on 30 July, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 423 of 2000()



1. HARIDASAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. K.V.MAHENDRAKUMAR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.GIRI

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.423 OF 2000
                  -------------------------
                    Dated 30th July, 2007

                            ORDER

A complaint was filed by the first respondent

before the Magistrate’s Court under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act complaining that the cheque issued

by the revision petitioner for Rs.5,00,000/= was dishonoured

for insufficiency of funds. Complaint was filed after

completing the legal formalities. Apart from the

complainant, Bank Manager was also examined to prove that the

cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Even

though it was contended that amount was borrowed in 1991 and

a blank cheque was issued and in 1993 the cheque was misused,

no defence witness was examined to prove the same and

presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act was not rebutted by the petitioner. Therefore, the trial

court found him guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment

for three months and Rs.5,00,000/= as compensation under

Section 357 Cr.P.C. In appeal, the sentence was reduced as

follows:

“In supersession of the sentence imposed
by the learned Magistrate u/s 138 of the

Crl.R.P.423/2000 2

N.I. Act, he is sentenced to undergo
S.I. for one month.

The appellant is further directed
u/s.357(3) Cr.P.C. to pay an amount of
Rs.5,05,000/- as compensation and in
default of payment to undergo S.I. for
a period of three months. Out of the
amount, if realised Rs.5,00,000/-
shall be paid to the complainant as
compensation and Rs.5,000/= shall be
credited to the state for the loss
suffered by it in terms of judicial
time and resources spent by it for the
resolution of the controversy between
the parties.”

Considering the execution of the cheque by the petitioner,

dishonour of the same for insufficiency of funds and

compliance of formalities for filing Section 138 of the

N.I. Act, I am of the opinion that no grounds are made out

by the revision petitioner to interfere with the conviction

passed by the courts below concurrently in the revisional

jurisdiction. The revision petitioner has failed to rebut

the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act also

after admitting the signature in the cheque. However,

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, even

though I am not interfering with the compensation ordered

by the courts below, I am reducing the sentence of

imprisonment from one month to three days. Other parts of

Crl.R.P.423/2000 3

sentence are not interefered.

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

This order is certified to the trial court for due

execution.

J.B.KOSHY
Judge

tks