Loading...
Responsive image

Sreedevi Amma vs Santhosh on 2 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sreedevi Amma vs Santhosh on 2 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information