S.Ramesh vs V.Ramachandran on 3 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3923 of 2008()


1. S.RAMESH, S/O.LATE SANKAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. V.RAMACHANDRAN, CHIRAG, CANARA BANK
                       ...       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 :03/12/2008

 O R D E R
                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                   ...........................................
                 CRL.R.P.NO. 3923 OF 2008
                   ............................................
     DATED THIS THE            3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008

                                  ORDER

Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the

complainant in S.T.635 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistrate-II, Palakkad. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced

for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner

challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Palakkad in

Crl.A.639 of 2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on

reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and

sentence and dismissed the appeal. Revision petition is filed

challenging the conviction and sentence.

2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was

heard.

3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner

submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the

concurrent findings, petitioner is not challenging the conviction,

but only seeks modification of sentence.

4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the

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

conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 and P2

CRRP 3923/2008 2

cheques were issued by revision petitioner towards the

repayment of the amount due. It is also proved that the 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 petitioner for the

offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal.

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

Though learned Magistrate awarded a substantive sentence of

simple imprisonment for six months, learned Sessions Judge set

aside the substantive sentence and awarded only a fine of

Rs.1,00,000/-. In such circumstances, no interference is

warranted in sentence also.

6. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is

granted four months time to pay the fine as directed by Sessions

Judge.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

lgk/-