P.P.Chandrasekharan vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 5 January, 2009

Kerala High Court

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4232 of 2008()


1. P.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, VIII/39,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :05/01/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

              ------------------------------------------
               CRL.R.P.NO.4232 OF 2008
              ------------------------------------------

               Dated        5th January 2009


                           O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the accused and

first respondent, the complainant in S.T.895/2006 on

the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II,

Palakkad. Revision petitioner was convicted and

sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the

conviction before Sessions court, Palakkad in

Crl.A.582/2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on

re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction

but modified the sentence to fine of Rs.40,000/- and

in default simple imprisonment for two months with a

direction to pay the fine, on realisation, to first

respondent. Revision is filed challenging the

conviction.

2. Learned counsel appearing for revision

petitioner was heard.

3. Learned counsel submitted that revision

petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the

CRRP 4232/08
2

sentence but because of financial conditions he may be

granted four months time to pay the fine.

4. On going through the judgments of the courts

below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction

or the modified sentence. Evidence establish that

Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioner to

first respondent bank towards payment of the amount due

and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and

first respondent had complied with all the statutory

formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision

petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. Learned

Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to fine

only with a direction to pay the fine, on realisation,

to first respondent as compensation. In such

circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the

sentence also.

Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner

is granted four months time from today to pay the fine.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.

CRRP 4232/08
3

Leave a Comment Cancel