IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1661 of 2006()
1. PARAMESWARA SHARMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.SURESHKUMAR, CHARANACKAL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.C.S.MANILAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :19/01/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
Crl.R.P. NO.1661 OF 2006
===========================
Dated this the 19th day of January,2009
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused and first
respondent the complainant in S.T.No.59/2003 on the
file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta.
Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to
a fine of Rs.2,15,000/- and in default simple
imprisonment for six months with a direction to pay
Rs.2,00,000/- out of the fine realised as
compensation to first respondent. Revision
petitioner challenged the conviction before
Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.295/2004.
Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of
evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and
dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the
revision.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner and first respondent were heard.
3. Learned counsel appearing for revision
CRRP 1661/2006 2
petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence
on record he is not challenging the conviction but
the sentence may be modified.
4. On going through the judgments of the
courts below, I find no reason to interfere with
the conviction.
5. Evidence establish that towards discharge
of liability of Rs.2,00,000/- revision petitioner
issued Ext.P2 cheque which was dishonoured for want
of sufficient funds when presented for encashment.
Evidence also establish that first respondent had
complied with all the statutory formalities
provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction
of the revision petitioner for the offence under
section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is
perfectly legal.
6. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced
the revision petitioner only to fine with a
direction to pay the amount covered by the
dishonoured cheque on realisation as compensation.
In addition to the amount covered by the
dishonoured cheque revision petitioner was directed
CRRP 1661/2006 3
to pay an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- as fine.
Considering all the relevant aspects, interest of
justice will be met, if the sentence is reduced to
Rs.2,05,000/- and in default simple imprisonment
for three months.
Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the
revision petitioner for the offence under section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed.
Sentence is modified. Revision petitioner is
sentenced to a fine of Rs.2,05,000/- and in default
simple imprisonment for three months. On
realisation of fine, Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid to
first respondent as compensation under section 357
(1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Though learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner sought time for payment,
revision was filed in 2006 and he had already
availed of three years. In such circumstance,
revision petitioner is granted two months time to
pay the fine. Revision petitioner need only
deposit the balance amount deducting the amount if
any deposited in the case earlier, as directed by
the appellate court or this court. First
CRRP 1661/2006 4
respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount, if
any in deposit.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006