Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID WEDNESDAY, THE20H DAY OF AUGUST201429TH SRAVANA, 1936 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1482 of 2014 () -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN Crl.A3142011 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT - III, MANJERI AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN ST7452007 of J.M.F.C.-I,TIRUR REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------- BASHEER PUTHENVEETTIL S/O KUNHAMMED, PUTHAN VEETTIL HOUSE, B.P ANGADI PO TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. RASIQUE BABU POTTENGAL HOUSE, POTTENGALPADI, KALPAKANCHERY MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 671 551.
2. STATE OFKERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GITHESH.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2008-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~ Crl. R.P No.1482 of 2014 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 20th August, 2014 ORDER
A cheque for 2 lakhs issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent herein in discharge of a liability incurred under an agreement happened to be dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. When he failed to make payment, the 1st respondent initiated prosecution before the Judicial first Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision petitioner entered appearance in the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the accusations. During trial, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P8 documents. The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence. Accepting the evidence on the side of the complainant, the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction thereunder, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months, and was also directed Crl. R.P No.1482 of 2014 2 to pay a compensation of 2 lakhs to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C by judgment dated 13.9.2011 in S.T No.745 of 2007.
2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/accused approached the Court of Session, Manjeri with Crl.A No.314 of 2011. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Now the accused is before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence.
3. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on a perusal of the case records, I find no reason or ground to admit the revision to files. The revision petition can be disposed of in limine, with some modification in sentence. The complainant has given definite and consistent evidence proving the transaction in which the revision petitioner incurred the alleged debt. The debt is further proved by Ext.P5 agreement to which the revision petitioner is a party. Proper execution of Ext.P1 cheque is also spoken to by the complainant. Bouncing of Ext.P1 Crl. R.P No.1482 of 2014 3 cheque stands proved by the evidence of the complainant himself, and also Ext.P2 series documents. The revision petitioner has no case that he had sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque or that the cheque issued by him was dishonoured on some other ground. Exts.P3 statutory notice was sent in time by the complainant, and the complaint was also filed in time. I find that the complainant has well proved his case on facts including the liability incurred by the revision petitioner, execution of Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the said liability, bouncing due to insufficiency of funds, and also compliance of the statutory requirements for prosecution. I find no illegality or irregularity or impropriety in the conviction made by the courts below.
4. The courts below have imposed a jail sentence of four months. In the particular facts and circumstances, I find that the direction to pay the entire cheque amount as compensation will do justice to the complainant. Notice to the respondent is felt not necessary in this case, when the conviction is confirmed, and the direction to pay Crl. R.P No.1482 of 2014 4 compensation is also confirmed in revision. Further modification in jail sentence, to bring it down to the minimum possible under the law, will not cause any prejudice to the complainant when he will otherwise be compensated adequately. I find that the sentence can be further modified and brought down to the minimum possible under the law. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of, as follows, without being admitted to files. (a) The conviction made by the courts below against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will stand confirmed. (b) The jail sentence imposed by the courts below will stand further modified in revision, and reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. (c) The direction made by the courts below to make payment of the compensation, with default sentence thereon, is maintained. Crl. R.P No.1482 of 2014 5 (d) The revision petitioner will surrender before the trial court within six months from this date to serve out the sentence modified in revision and to make payment of compensation voluntarily, on failure of which, steps shall be taken by the trial court to enforce the sentence, and recover the amount of compensation, or enforce the default sentence. Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge