IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4124 of 2008()
1. T.RASHEED, S/O KHALID, PULSARAKATH HOUSE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. FAISAL, S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, BUSINESS BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :19/12/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRL.R.P.NO. 4124 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the
complainant in C.C.790 of 1997 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate-II, Kannur. Revision petitioner was convicted and
sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Petitioner
challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court,
Thalassery. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence,
confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is
challenged in this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard.
Learned counsel submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of
the courts below and evidence on record, revision petitioner is not
challenging the conviction but considering the fact that the amount
covered by the dishonoured cheque is only Rs.18,564/-, the sentence
is excessive and it may be modified.
3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the
judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the
conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner
issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.18,564/- in discharge of existing liability
and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and
second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities
CRRP 4124/2008 2
provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of revision
petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly
legal.
4. Then the question is with regard to the sentence. Learned
Magistrate sentenced petitioner to simple imprisonment for six
months and a compensation of Rs.18,000/- and in default, simple
imprisonment for three months. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed
the sentence. Ext.P1 cheque is only for Rs.18,564/-. Rs.564/- is
admittedly the interest portion. In such circumstances, the sentence
awarded is excessive. Interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is
sufficiently modified
5. Revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of revision
petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is confirmed.
Sentence is modified. Revision petitioner is sentenced to
imprisonment till rising of court a fine of Rs.19,000/- and in default
simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it shall
be paid to second respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)
of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted three
months time to pay the fine. He is directed to appear before the
Magistrate on 20.3.2009.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-