Criminal Revision Petition No. 159 of 2000 · Kerala High Court · 2008
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.-------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.159 OF 2000------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008
O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced foroffence punishable under Section 138 of the NegotiableInstruments Act on the allegation that he issued a cheque forRs.75,000/- to the complainant for the discharge of a legallyenforceable debt and that on presentation, that cheque wasdishonoured due to insufficiency of fund and that on notice ofintimation of such dishonour, the accused did not pay theamount covered by the cheque. The sentence imposed on him bythe court of first instance was modified by the court of session byreducing the sentence of imprisonment to be for 3 months. 2. The court of first instance heard the version of thecomplainant as PW1 and the Manager of the Bank as PW2.Exts.P1 to P4 were taken on record which include the cheque, notice of return and other relevant materials in terms of thestatutory provision. The defence version projected under Crl.RP.159/00Page numbersSection 313 Cr.P.C. was that the cheque was issued as a securityfor the amount borrowed under the promissory note.
But nomaterial was brought out to prove it. I do not find any error orillegality in the appreciation of evidence, in the resultantfindings of the courts below and in the orders holding thepetitioner guilty. However, having regard to the nature of thetransaction, the sentence calls for interference. In the result, in modification of the sentence imposed bythe courts below, it is ordered that: (i) The revision is allowed in part. (ii) The finding of guilt and the conviction are confirmed. (iii) The sentence imposed by the courts below on therevision petitioner is vacated. In supersession thereof, therevision petitioner/accused is sentenced: (a) to undergo imprisonment till rising of thecourt, for a day; Crl.RP.159/00Page numbers(b)to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default ofthat, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days; and(c) to pay compensation of Rs.95,000/- to thecomplainant. Any amount already deposited in termsof the interim orders will be given due credit toagainst the compensation.
(d)Fine, on recovery, is to be released to thecomplainant as compensation. The learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps forexecution of the modified sentence hereby imposed. The revisionpetitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him beforethe Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittur on 28-11-2008 tosuffer the sentence, with proof of having satisfied the payment ofcompensation. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate shall takenecessary action against the revision petitioner and his sureties Crl.RP.159/00Page numbersunder Section 446 Crl.P.C., if he does not appear as directedabove. Sd/-THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,Judgekkb. Crl.RP.159/00Page numbers======================= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCrl.R.P.No.159/00O R D E R24TH SEPTEMBER, 2008.=======================
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 24 Sep 2008. The bench was THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.