IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 234 of 2009()
1. M.D.THOMAS, REDLAND TEA FACTORY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.L.SURESH, S/O.LEKSHMANAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :03/02/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
Crl.R.P. NO. 234 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 3rd day of February,2009
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused and
first respondent the complainant in
C.C.1283/2004 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Mavelikara. Revision
petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the
offence under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Revision petitioner
challenged the conviction before Additional
Sessions Court, Mavelikara in Crl.A.44/2007.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge on
reappreciation of evidence confirmed the
conviction and modified the sentence to simple
imprisonment for three months and a
compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Revision is filed
challenging the conviction and sentence.
2. Learned counsel appearing for revision
CRRP 234/2009 2
petitioner was heard.
3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of
the evidence on record and the concurrent findings
of fact, revision petitioner is not challenging the
conviction but the sentence may be modified and he
is ready to pay the amount covered by the
dishonoured cheque to first respondent and time may
be granted for payment.
4. On going through the judgments of the
courts below, I find no reason to interfere with
the conviction.
5. Evidence establish that revision petitioner
borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from first respondent and
towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque which
was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, when
presented for encashment. It is also established
that first respondent had complied with all
statutory formalities provided under section 138
and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such
circumstance, conviction of the revision petitioner
CRRP 234/2009 3
for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act is perfectly legal.
6. Then the question is regarding the
sentence. So long as the sentence is not altered
or varied against the interest of first respondent,
it is not necessary to issue notice to first
respondent. As per the sentence modified by
Additional Sessions Judge, first respondent is to
get a compensation of Rs.50,000/- only. Ext.P1
cheque is for Rs.2,00,000/-. Considering the
entire facts and circumstances of the case,
interest of justice will be met if the sentence is
modified to imprisonment till rising of court and a
fine of Rs.2,00,000/- the amount covered by the
dishonoured cheque.
Revision is allowed. Conviction is confirmed.
Sentence is modified. Revision petitioner is
sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and
in default simple imprisonment for two months. On
realisation of fine, it is to be paid to first
CRRP 234/2009 4
respondent as compensation under section 357(1)(b)
of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision
petitioner is granted to six months time to pay the
amount. He is permitted to pay the compensation
directly to first respondent and produce the
receipt and satisfy the Magistrate that fine, which
is to be paid on realisation as compensation to
first respondent was paid. Revision petitioner is
directed to appear before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Mavelikkara on 3.7.2009.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006