IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2565 of 2008()
1. SREEDEVI AMMA, W/O.R.OMANAKUTTAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SANTHOSH, SANTHI NIVAS, T.C.29/1496,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :02/02/2009
O R D E R
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
-------------------------------------------------
CRL.R.P.No.2565 OF 2008
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2ndday of February, 2009
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent
the complainant in S.T.77 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioner was
convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the
conviction and sentence before Sessions Court,
Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal 1204 of 2006. Learned
Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the
conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of
court and fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default simple imprisonment
for two months with a direction to pay Rs.22,000/- out of the fine,
on realisation, to first respondent as compensation. Revision is
filed challenging the conviction and sentence.
2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner
submitted that revision petitioner has filed a memo stating that
revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and sentence
and he is only seeking time for payment of the fine.
3. On going through the judgments of the Courts below I
CRRP 2565/2008
2
find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence.
Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.25,000/-
from first respondent and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1
cheque, which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds.
Evidence also establish that first respondent had complied with all
the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstances conviction of
the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal.
4. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned
Sessions Judge has already modified the sentence to imprisonment
till rising of Court and fine of Rs.25,000/- with a direction to pay
Rs.22,000/- out of the fine realised as compensation to first
respondent. Hence I find no reason to interfere with the sentence
also.
Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted two
months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to
appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-VI,
Thiruvananthapuram on 3.4.2009.
M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
okb
