IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1568 of 2006()
1. MUHAMMED ALIAS AHAMMED, S/O.KUNJHAPPU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANU, S/O.KAMMATHU,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.P.N.RAVINDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :28/11/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J
-----------------------
CRL. R.P.No. 1568 OF 2006
---------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008
ORDER
This revision is preferred against the judgment in Crl. A.
5/2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I,
Palakkad. The said appeal was preferred against S.T. 710/2000 of
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi. The trial court convicted
the revision petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three
months and to pay fine of Rs. 42,000/-. The appellate court also
confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It
is against that decision the revision petition is filed.
2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the
complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the revision
petitioner obtained an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to arrange a Visa
and when he failed to arrange Visa, the complainant demanded for
the amount, he issued a cheque for Rs. 40,000/- towards discharge
of the liability. When the cheque was presented for encashment it
was returned with an endorsement of ‘insufficiency of funds’. A
notice was issued for which, a reply was sent but no amount was
paid. Therefore the proceedings initiated. In the trial court PW1
Crl. R.P.No. 1568/2006
-2-
and DW1 were examined, P1 to P6 and D1 were marked. On
analysis of the materials the court below found that the evidence of
PW1 inspires confidence regarding the transaction and therefore
held that the accused had executed a cheque in favour of the
complainant towards the discharge of the liability and has not paid
the amount. The case of the revision petitioner was relating to
one Veeraraghavan and he had produced Ext. D1 regarding the
same. The courts below had analysed all the materials, did not find
in favour of the revision petitioner and therefore held that the case
is proved. It is also seen that the complaint has been filed in time
and all the statutory requirements are also complied with. There is
no perversity, illegality or irregularity committed by the court below
in arriving at a decision and therefore I do not propose to interfere
with the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act.
3. So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial court has
convicted the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period
of three months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 42,000/-. If
really he desires to pay the amount, I do not want to send him to
jail. Therefore I am inclined to modify the sentence by reducing the
sentence of imprisonment for one day that is till the rising of the
Crl. R.P.No. 1568/2006
-3-
court and convert the compensation to that of fine with default
sentence.
In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as
follows:
1. Conviction under section 138 is sustained.
2. The sentence is modified and the revision petitioner is
sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one day, that is till
the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs. 42,000/-, which on
realisation shall be disbursed to the complaint and in default of
payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of six weeks.
3. The revision petitioner shall present himself before the trial
court to receive the sentence and pay the fine on 06.2.2009, failing
which the trial court shall execute the sentence.
4. The amount which is deposited as compensation shall be
treated as part of the fine and balance need be deposited. The
amount shall be disbursed to the complainant on proper application.
The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE
vkm