MANOJ P. JOY Vs. RAJAGOPALAN CHETTIYAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the conviction concurrently entered against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was tried for the said offence in S.T. No. 81 of 2013 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -V, Kottayam and he was found guilty thereunder. Consequently, he was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one day till the rising of court. He was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/ - to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. In case of failure to pay the amount of compensation, the revision petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Crl. A. No .299 of 2013. The appellate court considered the contentions raised for mounting challenge against the judgment in S.T. No. 81 of 2013 and found them meritless. Consequently, the appellate court confirmed the conviction as also the sentence imposed by the trial court. This revision petition is filed in the said circumstances.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) THE next question to be considered is whether the sentence imposed for the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, call for any interference. Evidently, after convicting the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court sentenced him only to undergo simple imprisonment for one day till the rising of the court. Evidently, the appellate court found that the court below had taken a liberal view in awarding the said substantive sentence. I do not find any reason to hold otherwise. Evidently, the amount directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., is the amount covered by Ext. P1 cheque. In the light of the provisions under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., direction to pay such compensation cannot be said to be illegal and it is legal and permissible. I do not find any reason to interfere with the sentence imposed for the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, concurrently imposed by the courts below. In the said circumstance, the sentence imposed on the petitioner further conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is also liable to be confirmed. Accordingly it is confirmed.