A.T. UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. BABIL POLYMERS PULAMANTHOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner in both these revisions is the accused in S.T No.4700 of 2002 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Perinthalmanna. On the allegation that a cheque issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the complainant for an amount of 2,35,000/ - was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and he did not make payment of the cheque amount, in spite of statutory notice, the revision petitioner faced trial before the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE revision petitioner pleaded not guilty in the trial court and claimed to be tried. Prosecution was initiated by the 1st respondent herein. One Salim, who is the power of attorney holder of the complainant, was examined as PW1 and he marked Exts.P1 to P4 (a) during trial. By way of defence evidence, the revision petitioner examined one Hafeed Rahman and also marked Ext.D1 reply notice.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner approached the Court of Session, Manjeri with Crl.A No.377 of 2005. Dis -satisfied with the sentence imposed by the trial court, the complainant filed revision before the Court of Session, Manjeri as Crl.R.P. No.71 of 2005. The appeal and the revision were heard together by the learned Sessions Judge and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 6.2.2008. In Appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but enhanced the sentence and also enhanced the amount of compensation ordered. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal brought by the revision petitioner was dismissed, and the Criminal Revision brought by the 1st respondent was allowed in part. The sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for one week, and the amount of compensation was enhanced to 2,35,000/ -. Now the accused is before this Court in revision challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence. Crl.R.P. No.797of 2014 is the revision brought by him against the conviction and sentence and the unnumbered revision is the revision brought by him against the order of the appellate court enhancing the sentence and compensation by allowing the complainant's revision in part. As it could not be filed in time, the complainant seeks condonation of delay of 2137 days in Crl.M.A No.2731 of 2014.