High Court Kerala High Court

Prasanna Hudson vs Rajapadmam.S. on 7 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Prasanna Hudson vs Rajapadmam.S. on 7 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3578 of 2008()


1. PRASANNA HUDSON, RESIDING AT GANDHI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RAJAPADMAM.S. S/O.NARAYANAPILLAI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.S.KALKURA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :07/11/2008

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

                 CRL.R.P. NO.3578 OF 2008

      Dated, this the 7th day of November,2008

                         ORDER

Petitioner is the accused and first respondent

the complainant in S.T.297/2006on the file of

Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Thiruvananthapuram. Case of the first respondent

was that petitioner borrowed Rs.75,000/- and

towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque dated

6.8.2003 drawn in his account maintained in

Vazhuthacaud Branch of State Bank of Travancore

and when the cheque was presented, under Ext.P2 it

was dishonoured and inspite of Ext.P3 notice,

served on the petitioner under Ext.P5,demanding the

amount covered by the dishonoured cheque it was not

paid and petitioner thereby committed the offence

under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Petitioner pleaded not guilty. First respondent

was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked.

Petitioner did not adduce evidence. Learned

CRRP 3578/2008 2

Magistrate on the evidence found him guilty and

convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for

six months and a fine of Rs.75,000/- and in default

simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner

challenged the conviction before Sessions Court,

Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.168/2007. Learned

Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence

confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence

to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of

Rs.75,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for

three months. On realization of fine, it was

directed to be paid to first respondent as

compensation. Conviction and sentence is challenged

in this revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was

heard.

3. The argument of the learned counsel is that

courts below did not properly appreciate the

evidence and relying on the solitary evidence of

PW1, petitioner should not have been convicted. It

is also submitted that if the conviction and

CRRP 3578/2008 3

sentence is to be confirmed petitioner may be

granted time to pay the fine.

4. Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions

Judge considered the evidence of PW1 in the light

of the defence taken. What was contended by the

petitioner was that Ext.P1 cheque was issued as a

blank cheque and that too as security of

Rs.15,000/- borrowed from Vijayan by the husband of

the petitioner and it was not issued to first

respondent towards repayment of the loan. On

going through the judgments of the courts below

apart from the suggestion that Ext.P1 cheque was

issued as a blank cheque and that too to one

Vijayan, from whom husband of the petitioner

borrowed the amount, no evidence was adduced. The

evidence of PW1 establishes that Ext.P1 cheque was

issued towards repayment of Rs.75,000/- borrowed

by the petitioner. In such circumstance, I find no

reason to interfere with the factual findings of

the courts below that Ext.P1 cheque was issued

towards repayment of the amount borrowed.

CRRP 3578/2008 4

Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was

dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is

also proved that first respondent complied with

all the statutory formalities provided under

section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under

section 138 is perfectly legal.

5. Then the only question is with regard to

the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the

sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court,

in addition to fine which was only for the amount

covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such

circumstance, no interference is warranted in the

sentence also. Revision Petition is dismissed.

Petitioner is granted three months time from today

to pay the fine.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE

Tpl/-

CRRP 3578/2008 5

OF 2008
===========================

Dated this the day of November,2008

ORDER

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006