IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 601 of 2003()
1. SEBASTIN V.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GEORGE VARKEY,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU
For Respondent :SRI.BOBY MATHEW
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :16/12/2009
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P. NO. 601 OF 2003
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was the accused in C.C. No.515 of 1993 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvalla and he
was the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 93 of 1994 on the file of the Sessions
Court, Pathanamthitta. He was indicted under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in
C.C. No.515 of 1993. The said case originated from the complaint filed by
the first respondent herein. As per the complaint, the revision
petitioner/accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 31.5.1993 drawn in favour
of the Union Bank of India in discharge of a liability to the tune of
Rs.20,000/- due to the first respondent herein/ complainant. The said
cheque when presented for collection was dishonoured on account of
insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. Thereupon,
the first respondent/complainant issued the statutorily prescribed notice.
Admittedly, the revision petitioner had failed to pay back the amount
within the statutorily prescribed period. The complaint was filed in the
CRL.R.P. NO.601/2003 2
said circumstances. The complainant was examined as PW.2 and one T.K.
Chandramohanan was examined as PW.1. Exts.P1 to P8 were produced
and marked on the side of the complainant. There was no evidence, either
oral or documentary, on the side of the accused. After considering the
oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the complainant, the
trial court found that nothing was brought out in the cross-examination of
PW.2 to discredit him and that the evidence of PW.1 corroborates with the
evidence of PW2, the complainant. Therefore, the case of the first
respondent herein that the cheque was issued in discharge of his liability
was upheld. It was also found that all the ingredients to attract an offence
under Section 138 of the Act have been satisfied. Therefore, the revision
petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay an amount of
Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of compensation, he
has to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
Challenging the judgment in C.C. No.515 of 1994, the revision petitioner
unsuccessfully attempted an appeal as Crl. appeal No.93 of 1994. As per
the judgment dated 9.10.2002, the appellate court confirmed the
conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision.
CRL.R.P. NO.601/2003 3
2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised only if
the orders impugned are perverse or illegal or they suffer from procedural
irregularities and illegalities or requires correction of a serious nature. The
revision petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference by this
Court under the revisional jurisdiction. After going through the judgments
impugned, I cannot find any reason for interfering with the impugned
judgments. In fact, evidently, all the ingredients to attract the provision
under Section 138 of the Act have been satisfied. Therefore, it cannot be
held that the judgments impugned suffer from any illegality warranting
interference with the conviction entered against the revision petitioner.
Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act
is confirmed.
3. With respect to the question as to whether the sentence imposed
on the revision petitioner/accused is excessive or disproportionate, I think
the said issue requires consideration. The transaction in question was in
the year 1993. The revision petitioner is now aged more than 50 years.
Considering all the above aspects, I think, interest of justice could be met
by reducing the sentence imposed on him by imposing a sentence of
imprisonment till the rising of the court. Ordered accordingly. With
respect to the compensation payable to the complainant under Section 357
CRL.R.P. NO.601/2003 4
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.
The revision petitioner is granted two moths’ time to pay the said amount
of Rs.25,000/-. If any amount has already been deposited, the revision
petitioner need pay only the balance amount of compensation. The entire
amount of fine, if remitted by the revision petitioner, shall be released to
the first respondent/complainant immediately. His bail bonds are
cancelled. The revision petitioner/accused shall appear before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvalla on 17.2.2010 to suffer
the punishment of imprisonment.
The Crl. Revision Petition is disposed of as above.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
sp/
CRL.R.P. NO.601/2003 5
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
CRL.R.P. NO. 601/2003
O R D E R
16th December, 2009
CRL.R.P. NO.601/2003 6