IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4216 of 2008()
1. JOHNSON V.I, AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THOMAS MATHEW MAVELIL,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :14/01/2009
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.NO. 4216 OF 2008
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the
complainant in C.C.877 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta. Revision petitioner was convicted and
sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions
Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl. Appeal 343 of 2007. Learned Sessions
Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction but
modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and
confirmed the compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- directed to be paid by
the learned Magistrate. Revision is filed challenging the conviction.
2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was
heard.
3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner
submitted that though learned Magistrate has no territorial
jurisdiction to try the case, in view of the decision of this Court in
Meenakshi Vs. Udayakumar and Another (2007 (2) KLD 432)
whereunder it was held that question regarding objection of territorial
jurisdiction is to be raised at the initial stage and not at the fag end of
the trial, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the
CRRP 4216/2008
2
sentence and revision petitioner may be granted time to make the
payment.
4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the
judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the
conviction. Evidence establish that towards the repayment of
Rs.1,10,000/- due, revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour
of first respondent, which was dishonoured for want of sufficient
funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory
formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence
under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal.
5. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned
Sessions Judge modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till
rising of Court and maintained the compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-,
which is 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 five months
time to pay the compensation and appear before the Magistrate.
Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate on 15.6.2009.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
okb