BABY THOMAS Vs. BHARATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON an allegation that a cheque for Rs. 71,936/ - issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the complainant (First respondent herein) in discharge of the price of Fertilizer purchased by him was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, the revision petitioner faced prosecution before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram in C.C No.389/2001. He pleaded not guilty to the accusations and claimed to be tried. The complainant is the proprietor of a concern involved in the sale and distribution of fertilizers. He examined himself as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P6 during trial. The revision petitioner did not adduce any oral evidence in defence, but Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. The defence case pleaded by the accused is that he had worked for sometime as a commission agent under the complainant, and had handed over a blank cheque as security when he joined service. After he left the complainant's shop the complainant misused the said cheque and made a false complaint against him, with the object of extracting some money from him. On an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the complainant the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, and also to pay a fine of 5,000/ -.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner approached the court of Session, Manjeri with Crl. A 1/2002. In appeal the learned 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.) NOW the question is whether the sentence requires interference in this case. Of course, the trial court could not have imposed anything more than Rs.5,000/ - as fine in the year 2001. In the particular facts and circumstances discussed above, I feel the necessity of modifying the jail sentence, by reducing it to the minimum possible under the law. With this modification in sentence, the revision can be allowed in part.