IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3264 of 2009()
1. T.BHARATHAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 38 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
For Petitioner :SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :20/10/2009
O R D E R
P.S.Gopinathan, J.
==========================================
Crl.R.P.3264 of 2009
==========================================
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009.
ORDER
1.The revision petitioner is the accused in
C.C.No.327 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class-II (Additional
Munsiff), Kasargode. The first respondent
prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after
due trial, arrived a conclusion of guilt.
Consequently, the revision petitioner was
convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment
for three months and to pay an amount of
Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation to the first
respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure with default clause to undergo
simple imprisonment for one month more. The
amount, if realised, was ordered to be given to
the complainant as compensation. In appeal, the
CRRP3264/09 -:2:-
Sessions Judge, Kasargode confirmed the
conviction. But modified the sentence of simple
imprisonment to ten days. The direction to pay
compensation and default sentence were also
confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness
and propriety of the conviction and sentence, as
modified in appeal, this revision petition was
filed.
2.Having heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I
find that the first respondent, who was examined
as P.W.1, supported by Exts.P1 to P5, had
succeeded to establish that the revision
petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- to the
first respondent and in discharge of the said
liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 12.12.2007 was
issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for
collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency
of funds, as evidenced by Ext.P2 dated
CRRP3264/09 -:3:-
14.12.2007. Though a lawyer notice, copy of
which was marked as Ext.P3 dated 10.1.2008, was
caused demanding discharge of the liability and
it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner,
as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not
discharged.
3.The appellate court has now awarded substantive
sentence of ten days and default sentence of one
month for non-payment of compensation amounting
to Rs.1,90,000/-. The substantive sentence as
well as default sentence awarded by the appellate
court is too low. Adding to that, an ordinary
money transaction pursuaded the revision
petitioner to face the prosecution. I find that
the sentence requires a modification and that a
sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court
with compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- would meet the
ends of justice.
CRRP3264/09 -:4:-
In the result, this revision petition is allowed
in part. The conviction is confirmed and the
sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising
of the court and compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-.
In default of payment of compensation, the
revision petitioner shall undergo simple
imprisonment for six months. The revision
petitioner is granted six months’ time to pay
compensation, provided, he executes a bond for
Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties each for
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
court. The trial court shall see the execution
of sentence and report compliance.
sl. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge.