Kerala High Court
Sunil.K.Easo, S/O.Late Easo vs Erayil Investments, Erayil ... on 20 January, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 237 of 2009()
1. SUNIL.K.EASO, S/O.LATE EASO,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ERAYIL INVESTMENTS, ERAYIL KADAVU, ... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE For Petitioner :SRI.A.K.HARIDAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :20/01/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO. 237 OF 2009
------------------------------------------ Dated 20th January 2009
O R D E R
Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.282/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged conviction before the Sessions court, Kottayam in Crl.A.213/2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed conviction and modified sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs.65,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months with a direction to pay fine on realisation as compensation to first respondent under Section 357 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard.
3. Though learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner argued that as Ext.P1 cheque was issued CRRP 237/09
2
when C.C.113/2002, another cheque case was pending, as held by Apex court in Lalit Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P (2008 (2) KLT 728) no offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted, facts are entirely different. In the case considered by the Apex court though there was a settlement in a case pending for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and another cheque was issued and that cheque was bounced and another complaint was filed. On that fact it was found that there is no consideration for the second cheque, for the reason that original case was not withdrawn or compounded and settlement was not materialised. Admittedly, in this case, though as against dishonour of the first cheque C.C.113/2002 was lodged, it is admitted case that, that case was later withdrawn on the revision petitioner issuing the dishonoured cheque in this case. Therefore, it cannot be contended that there is no consideration for the dishonoured cheque. When this was pointed out, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that revision petitioner is not contesting the revision on merit and revision petitioner may be granted four months time to pay fine as directed by the learned CRRP 237/09
3
Additional Sessions Judge.
Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kottayam on 20/5/2009.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.
No comments:
Post a Comment