G.S. Premalatha vs S.Binu on 3 December, 2008

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

G.S. Premalatha vs S.Binu on 3 December, 2008

Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3867 of 2008()


1. G.S. PREMALATHA, R.P. BHAVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. S.BINU, S/O. G. SREEDHARAN NAIR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :03/12/2008

 O R D E R
                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
                       ...........................................
                     CRL.R.P.NO. 3867 OF 2008
                      ............................................
        DATED THIS THE            3rd      DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008

                                      ORDER

Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.907 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.863 of 2006. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, in addition to a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it was directed to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)

(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence.

2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and first respondent were heard.

3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner, in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings, submitted that petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but only seeks three months time to pay the fine as directed by learned Sessions Judge.

4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the CRRP 3867/2008 2 judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner in discharge of an existing liability and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal.

5. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a fine, and that too for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted in sentence also.

6. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine as directed by Sessions Judge. Petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate- I, Attingal on 4.3.2009.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court