IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1342 of 2005()
1. K.C.MATHEW, S/O.CHERIAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.K.IBRAHIM, S/O.KUNJU MARACKAR,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
For Petitioner :SMT.P.K.RADHIKA
For Respondent :SRI.ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :17/09/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
=====================
Crl.R.P. No.1342 OF 2005
=====================
Dated this the 17th day of September 2008
O R D E R
This criminal revision petition is preferred against the judgment in
Crl.A.No.49 of 2005 of the Vth Addl.Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The
revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of
Rs,10 lakhs and in default of payment to undergo a further imprisonment
for another two months. It was against that decision the appeal was
preferred and the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. It
is against that decision the present revision petition is filed.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that
the materials available are not sufficient to enter into a finding of
conviction. Both the courts below had considered the matter elaborately.
There is a statement in Ext.P6 reply notice to the effect that at least he had
borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from PW1. The evidence tendered before
the trial court would establish that he had issued a cheque in discharge of
the liability and the contention that it has been given only as a security
Crl.RP 1342/2005 -:2:-
cannot be accepted. The trial court considered the evidence of PW1 and
found out that it is in tune with the averments in the complaint and severe
cross examination had not discredited his evidence. It is also to be stated
that there is no consistent defence for the revision petitioner. Admittedly
Ext.P1 cheque contains the signature of the accused and it was on an
account maintained by the accused. The proof of signature in the cheque
coupled with the evidence of PW1 regarding the transaction would establish
that the case spoken to by the complainant is true. Ext.P2 would show that
the cheque was dishonoured and Ext.P4 reveals the issuance of a notice as
evidenced by Ext.P5 postal receipt. Notice has been issued in time and the
complaint is also filed within the stipulated period and therefore the
contention that the complaint is filed beyond time also cannot be accepted.
This aspect has also been considered by the trial court in paragraph 10 of its
judgment. The trial court held that from the date of notice the accused will
get 15 days’ time to pay the amount and during that period the complainant
cannot institute the case. Therefore the period has to be calculated from the
expiry of that 15 days and that will end only on 19.8.2002. The complaint
has been filed on 13.8.2002 and therefore the question of limitation also
does not arise. Therefore the conviction entered by the courts below is
proper and in order and does not call for any interference.
Crl.RP 1342/2005 -:3:-
3. Lastly, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that
some leniency may be shown considering the fact that the accused is a
person aged 76 years who had lost very badly in his business, who is
expecting some amount from the contract which he has done. Considering
the submission and after hearing the learned counsel for the complainant as
well, I feel some leniency can be shown on the question of sentence. It will
be sufficient if the revision petitioner is directed to undergo imprisonment
till raising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.10 lakhs and on deposit of the
same, it be given to the complainant. In case of default of payment of fine,
the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4
months. The revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the court
below to undergo sentence of imprisonment till raising of the court and
payment of fine on 24.11.2008.
Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
Cdp/-