IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl Rev Pet No. 424 of 2000()
1. SUSEELAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VIJAYAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.JOSE K.KOCHUPAPPU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
Dated :30/07/2007
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY, J.
-------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.424 OF 2000
-------------------------
Dated 30th July, 2007
ORDER
First respondent approached the Magistrate’s Court
complaining that the cheque issued by the revision petitioner
for Rs.31,200/= for discharging a legally enforceable debt
and the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.
After completing the legal formalities, the complainant
approached the Magistrate’s Court. The allegations in the
petition were proved by examining the complainant and Branch
Manager of the Bank. It was proved that the cheque issued by
the revision petitioner was dishonoured for insufficiency of
funds. All the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act are satisfied. The Magistrate’s Court
convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment
for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/=. In appeal,
even though conviction was confirmed, sentence was modified
and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of
the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.35,000/= under
Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There was
a further direction to pay Rs.32,500/= to the complainant as
compensation. The only submission made is that notice was
return unclaimed and it was received back only on 15.5.96 and
if time is computed, it is premature by one day. It has been
Crl.R.P.424/2000 2
held by the Apex Court that, that cannot be a reason for
throwing out a complaint. Even if that point is accepted,
at the maximum numbering of the complaint can be made after
the expiry of time. Apart from that, trial court correctly
mentioned that cheque was returned on 15.5.96 and then the
complaint is filed in time also. I see no ground to
interfere with the conviction and sentence. This order is
certified to the trial court for implementation.
The revision petition is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY
Judge
tks