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
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
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE