K.P. SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. THE SECRETARY, LOKNATH WEAVERS INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. AND STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction entered and the sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act') in Criminal Appeal No. 441/04 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ad hoc-II, Thalassery. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the Revision Petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in C.C. No. 1133/02 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kannur. According to the impugned judgment, the Revision Petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and he is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner reiterated the contentions which were raised before the courts below and got rejected concurrently. The learned counsel urged for a re-appreciation of evidence once again, which is not permissible under the revisional jurisdiction unless any kind of perversity is found in the appreciation of evidence. The Revision Petitioner failed to point out any kind of perversity in the appreciation of evidence. The courts below had concurrently found that the complainant/1st respondent had successfully discharged initial burden of proving execution and issuance of the cheque; whereas the Revision Petitioner had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act which stood in favour of the 1st respondent. So also, it is found that the debt due to the 1st respondent was a legally enforceable debt and Ext. P1 cheque was duly executed and issued in discharge of the said debt. I do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the said findings or perversity in appreciation of evidence, from which the above findings had been arrived. Therefore, I am not inclined to re-appreciate entire evidence once again and I confirm the concurrent findings of conviction.

(2.) The counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that challenge under this Revision is confined to sentence only. The sentence imposed on the Revision Petitioner is disproportionate with the gravity and nature of the offence. He further submits that the Revision Petitioner is willing to pay the compensation as ordered by the court below; but he is unable to raise the said amount forthwith due to paucity of funds. But he is ready to pay the compensation within three months.

(3.) The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the transaction between the revision petitioner and the 1st respondent was of the year 1999 and the cheque was issued in 1999 itself. So, a reasonable modification alone can be made in the sentence.