MAHESH M C Vs. SATHEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and in this revision petition he challenges the insufficient sentence awarded against the accused.

(2.) The case of the revision petitioner is that towards the discharge of the legally enforcible debt of Rs. 1,00,000/- due to him, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 20.1.2006, which whenpresentedfor encashment dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and according to the revision petitioner, though he had caused to issue a statutory notice demanding for the payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, no amount was paid and hence the espondent/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Cognizance was taken upon the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner, for the said offence and instituted S.T.C.No.1353/2006 in the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. On conviction the trial court sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and also directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. to the complainant/revision petitioner.But no default sentence is prescribed.

(3.) Challenging the above conviction and sentence, though the respondent/accused had preferred an appeal, by judgment dated 30.9.2009 in Crl.A.No.55/2008, the court of Addl.Sessions, Adhoc-I, Palakkad dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction but the sentence was modified and reduced the same till the rising of the court. No interference was made with respect to the order of compensation and no default sentence also imposed.