IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4012 of 2008()
1. K.P.VALSALAKUMARI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SASIKUMAR, S/O.UNNIKRISHNA PANICKER
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.VINOD
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :10/12/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
--------------------------------------------------
Crl.Revision Petition No. 4012 of 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008
O R D E R
Revision Petitioner is the accused and first
respondent the complainant in S.T.No.1256/2004 on the file
of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi. Revision
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was challenged
before the First Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad in
Criminal Appeal No.532/2006. Learned Additional Sessions
Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the
conviction and modified the sentence to pay a fine of
Rs.1,10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment
for one month. On realization of fine, Rupees one lakh is to
be paid to the first respondent as compensation. Revision
petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence.
Crl.R.P.No.4012/2008
– 2 –
2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
was heard. Learned counsel submitted that, in view of the
evidence on record and the concurrent findings of facts,
revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or sentence.
But revision petitioner may be granted six months’ time to pay
the fine.
3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through
the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere
with the conviction. Courts below, on proper appreciation of
evidence, found that Exhibit P1 cheque was issued by the
revision petitioner towards repayment of Rs.1,00,000/- due from
the revision petitioner. Exhibit P1 cheque, when presented for
encashment, was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is
also proved that first respondent had complied with all
statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, conviction of the revision
Crl.R.P.No.4012/2008
– 3 –
petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act is perfectly legal.
4. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence only to
a fine and that to Rs.10,000/- is in excess of the amount covered
by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, I find no
reason to interfere with the sentence also.
Revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petitioner is
granted six months’ time to pay the fine.
Sd/-
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
skr
// True copy //
P.A. to Judge.