Kerala High Court
L. Jyothi @ Laly vs R. Suresh Kumar on 24 October, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/26TH BHADRA, 1936
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1566 of 2014 ()
--------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 90/2009 of I ADL.SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 24-10-2011
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 258/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
COURT-I, ATTINGAL DATED 30-12-2008
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. JYOTHI @ LALY
VELIKKAKATHU VEEDU, SARKARA VILLAGE
CHIRAYINKEEZH TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & NON-PARTY:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. R. SURESH KUMAR
S/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, B.K.MANDIRAM
KOONTHALLOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZH P.O.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. R. GITHESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
JJJ
K.HARILAL, J.
------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No. 1566 of 2014
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2014
O R D E R
This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction entered and the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act') in Criminal Appeal No.90/2009 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the revision petitioner is guilty of the said offence, alleged in C.C.No.258/2005 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Attingal. According to the impugned judgment, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay a compensation of Rs.78,000/- to the complainant under section 357(3) of Criminal Procedure Crl.R.P. No. 1566 of 2014 -2- Code and in default of payment of compensation to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterated the contentions which were raised before the courts below and got rejected concurrently. The learned counsel urged for a re-appreciation of evidence once again, which is not permissible under the revisional jurisdiction unless any kind of perversity is found in the appreciation of evidence. The revision petitioner failed to point out any kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence. The courts below had concurrently found that the complainant/1st respondent had successfully discharged initial burden of proving execution and issuance of the cheque; whereas the revision petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act which stood in favour of the 1st respondent. So also, it is found that the debt due to the 1st respondent was a Crl.R.P. No. 1566 of 2014 -3- legally enforceable debt and Ext.P1 cheque was duly executed and issued in discharge of the said debt. I do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the said findings or perversity in appreciation of evidence, from which the above findings had been arrived. Therefore, I am not inclined to re-appreciate entire evidence once again and I confirm the concurrent findings of conviction.
3. The counsel for the revision petitioner submits that challenge under this Revision is confined to sentence only. The sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is disproportionate with the gravity and nature of the offence. He further submits that the revision petitioner is willing to pay the compensation as ordered by the court below; but he is unable to raise the said amount forthwith due to paucity of funds. But he is ready to pay the compensation/fine within six months.
Crl.R.P. No. 1566 of 2014 -4-
4. The Supreme Court, in the decision in Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore (AIR 2011 SC 2566), held that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is almost in the nature of civil wrong which has been given criminal overtone, and imposition of fine payable as compensation is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Further, in Vijayan vs. Baby (2011(4) KLT 355), Supreme Court held that the direction to pay the compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of the dishonour of the cheque should be practical and realistic. So, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the compensatory aspect of remedy should be given much priority over punitive aspect.
5. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, in the light of the decisions quoted above and submission made at the Bar, expressing willingness to pay the compensation within six months, I am inclined to grant Crl.R.P. No. 1566 of 2014 -5- six months' time to pay the compensation. Consequently, this Revision Petition is liable to be disposed of subject to the following terms.
i. The revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court.
ii. The Revision Petitioner shall pay
Rs.78,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight
thousand only) to the complainant as
compensation under section 357(3) of
Cr.P.C. within a period of six months from today.
iii. The revision petitioner shall appear before the trial Court to suffer the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment as ordered above on or before 19th March, 2015, after effecting payment of compensation to the Crl.R.P. No. 1566 of 2014 -6- complainant.
iv. In the event of default, the revision
petitioner shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three month. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
K. HARILAL, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge jjj