Kerala High Court
Saji T.K vs Mathew Oommen on 21 March, 2014
Author: M.L.Joseph Francis
Bench: M.L.Joseph Francis
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/30TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 668 of 2014 ()
-------------------------------
CRL.APPEAL NO.10/2014 of SESSIONS JUDGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.
ST 1579/2009 of J.M.F.C.-II,PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :
--------------------------------
SAJI T.K., ALUNILKUNNATHIL VEEDU,
ELANDTHOOR EAST P.O., ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
SRI.V.V.RAJA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE :
--------------------------------------------------
1. MATHEW OOMMEN, AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O.OOMMEN MATHEW, CHAMAKALAYIL HOUSE,
ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.THOMAS J.AMBOOKEN.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-
2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No.668 OF 2014
-----------------------------------------------
Dated 21st March, 2014
O R D E R
This Criminal revision Petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No.1579 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Pathanamthitta, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the NI Act'). The cheque amount was `3,00,000/-. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of `3,00,000/- to the complainant under Section357(3) of the Cr.P.C., in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months more. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2014 before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which was allowed in part and the conviction of the accused was confirmed and the sentence was modified. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay `3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section Crl.R.P.No.668/14 2 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Against that judgment, the appellant/accused filed this Revision Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised the same contentions raised before the trial court and the appellate court. Both the courts below rejected the contentions by giving cogent reasons. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the courts below and confirm the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Since the appellate court awarded only a reasonable sentence, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also.
Accordingly this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as it is without any merits. Twelve months time is granted to the accused in S.T. No.1579 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - II, Pathanamthitta to pay the compensation and to surrender before the trial court to undergo Crl.R.P.No.668/14 3 imprisonment.
Sd/-
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.
tgs (true copy)