V.P. DAVIS Vs. 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. 24/2003 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge, N. Paravur. The above appeal was filed challenging the judgment finding that the Revision Petitioner is guilty of the said offence, passed in S.T. No. 591/1999 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, N. Paravur. According to the impugned judgment, the Revision Petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay compensation of 60,000/ - to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months more.

(2.) IT is the case of the 2nd respondent/complainant that the revision petitioner being the proprietor of Poulose Memorial Financial Enterprises owed an amount of 60,000/ - to the 2nd respondent. The said amount was deposited by the 2nd respondent in the company owned by the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner gave a cheque for 63,000/ - including interest of 3,000/ - to discharge the liability. The said cheque when presented for collection was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Though, he had caused to issue a lawyer's notice, he could not yield any result. Thus, the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the amount claimed by the respondent by way of Ext. P1 cheque was not payable by the revision petitioner. According to the revision petitioner, the transaction was between the father of the 2nd respondent and the revision petitioner company and the amount due to the 2nd respondent was paid to the father of the 2nd respondent. Only a sum of 20,000/ - was payable by the revision petitioner and Ext. P2 cheque was issued only as security for payment of that amount.

(3.) AT last, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner confined his arguments to sentence only. According to him, 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.