P.Ravuf vs K.A. Mohammed Ali on 16 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3340 of 2008()


1. P.RAVUF, S/O NABEESU, AGED 50 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.A. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O ABU,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :16/12/2008

 O R D E R
                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                     ...........................................
                  CRL.R.P.NO. 3340 OF 2008
                    ............................................
     DATED THIS THE             16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008

                                    ORDER

Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the

complainant in C.C.178 of 2003 on the file of Additional chief Judicial

Magistrate, Thalassery. Revision petitioner was convicted and

sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of

Rs.60,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months,

with a direction to pay Rs.55,000/- out of the fine realised to first

respondent as compensation. Petitioner challenged the conviction

before Sessions Court, Thalassery in Crl.A.486 of 2003. Learned

Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the

conviction, but modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till

rising of court, maintaining the fine and direction to pay

compensation. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction

and sentence.

2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard.

Learned counsel argued that courts below did not properly appreciate

the evidence and there is no evidence to prove that Ext.P1 cheque was

issued by revision petitioner towards discharge of a legally

recoverable debt or liability and therefore the conviction is not

sustainable.

CRRP 3340/2008 2

3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the

judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the

conviction or sentence. Courts below appreciated the evidence in the

proper perspective and found that Ext. P1 cheque was issued towards

discharge of Rs.50,000/- which was received from first respondent

earlier. Evidence also establish that cheque was dishonoured for want

of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the

statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act.

Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of

N.I.Act is perfectly legal.

4. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence.

Though learned Magistrate awarded a substantive sentence of simple

imprisonment for three months, learned Sessions Judge reduced the

same to imprisonment till rising of court. Learned Magistrate

awarded a fine of Rs.60,000/- which was maintained by learned

Sessions Judge. Ext.P1 cheque is for Rs.50,000/- and was issued in

2002. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the

sentence also.

5. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted

two months time to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear

before the Magistrate on 17.2.2009.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-