LAWS(KER)-2015-3-207

K.P. VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. PRAKASH SAIT AND ORS.

Decided On March 06, 2015
K.P. Vijayakumar Appellant
V/S
Prakash Sait And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision Petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 88/2001 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur, as well as the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 223/2005 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. III, Adhoc) Manjeri. He was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by the respondent herein. It is the case of the respondent that in discharge of a legally enforceable liability the petitioner/accused issued Exhibit P1 cheque for an amount of Rs. 75,000/ - to the respondent and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured and returned for want of sufficient funds. Though the respondent caused to issue a lawyer's notice demanding the cheque amount, the petitioner neither sent a reply denying the liability nor did he pay the cheque amount as demanded in the notice. Thus the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) AFTER considering the evidence on record the learned Magistrate have found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 75,000/ - to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Though the petitioner had preferred above criminal appeal, the Appellate Court also after re -appreciating the evidence on record, confirmed the findings of conviction and sentence as such without any interference. The legality and propriety of the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence are under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) AT last the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the proportionality of the sentence imposed on the petitioner. According to him, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate with nature and gravity of the offences, and it is excessive and harsh.