IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 2403 of 2006()
1. SALI ABRAHAM, PATTALATHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SOSAMMA, W/O.RAJU,SANKARANKULATHIL HOUSE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA , REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.R.PREM SANKAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/07/2006
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 2403 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2006
O R D E R
This revision petition is directed against a concurrent verdict of
guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act.
2. The appellate court had modified the sentence to one of
imprisonment till rising of court and to pay the actual cheque amount as
compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month.
3. The cheque is for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- It is dated
3.9.2003. Signature in the cheque is admitted. The notice of demand
succeeded in evoking a response of denial. The complainant examined
himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. A plea was taken that the
cheque was handed over as a blank signed cheque as security in a
transaction entered into long earlier between the husband of the
complainant and the husband of the petitioner. That cheque was
misutilised, it was contended. She examined DW1 and Ext.D1 was
marked. The courts below concurrently came to the conclusion that all
ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
have been established. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the
impugned concurrent judgments.
4. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the
petitioner wants to mount against the impugned concurrent judgments, the
learned counsel for the petitioner does not strain to assail the verdict of
guilty and conviction on merits. Having gone through the impugned
concurrent judgments, I am satisfied that the verdict of guilty and
conviction are absolutely justified and unexceptionable. In the absence of
challenge on any specific ground, it is not necessary for me to advert to
facts in any greater detail.
5. The counsel prays that leniency may be shown. It is prayed that
the petitioner may be granted some further time to make the payment of
compensation as directed by the court below. I note that maximum
permissible leniency was shown to the petitioner by the courts below. The
learned Appellate Judge has imposed on the petitioner a sentence of
imprisonment till rising of court and and to pay the actual cheque amount
alone as compensation. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that any
further leniency needs or deserves to be shown. However it can be
directed that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 1.9.2006
to serve the impugned sentence. Till then the sentence shall not be
executed. If the petitioner does not so appear, the learned Magistrate shall
thereafter take necessary steps to execute the impugned sentence.
7. This revision petition is hence dismissed with the above
observations/directions.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm