IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3873 of 2008()
1. MANOJKUMAR, S/O.NANU, AGED 39 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RATHEESH BABU V.K.,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHARAM.P
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :01/12/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
Crl.R.P. NO.3873 OF 2008
===========================
Dated this the 1st day of December,2008
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused and first
respondent the complainant in C.C.344/2002 on the
file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thalassery. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced
for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the
conviction and sentence before Sessions Court,
Thalassery in Crl.A.41/2003. Learned Sessions
Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the
conviction but modified the sentence to
imprisonment till rising of court and a
compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Revision is filed
challenging the conviction and sentence.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner was heard.
3. Learned counsel submitted that revision
petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the
CRRP 3873/2008 2
sentence and revision petitioner may be granted
three months time to pay the compensation as
directed by learned Sessions Judge.
4. On going through the judgments of the
courts below, I find no reason to interfere with
the conviction or the sentence.
5. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque for
Rs.50,000/- was issued by the revision petitioner
towards discharge of Rs.50,000/- borrowed earlier.
Evidence also proved that the cheque was
dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is
also proved that first respondent had complied with
all the statutory formalities provided under
section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence
under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is
perfectly legal.
6. Then the only question is regarding the
sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the
sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in
addition to a compensation which was only for the
CRRP 3873/2008 3
amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such
circumstance, sentence also does not warrant
interference.
Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is
granted three months time to pay the compensation
as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
revision petitioner may be permitted to pay the
compensation directly to the first respondent and
to produce the receipt. Revision petitioner is
permitted to pay the compensation directly to the
first respondent and to satisfy the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate that the compensation has
been paid as directed. Revision petitioner is
directed to appear before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery on 4.3.2009.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006