P JANARDHANAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Criminal Revision Petition, I do not think that it is necessary to issue notice to the second respondent/complainant as no interference is being made in the conviction of the petitioner.

(2.) The revision petitioner was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.937 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class II, Kollam. The trial court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for eight months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. The trial court also directed that if the fine is realised, the same shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.136 of 2006, on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Kollam. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to pay to the second respondent/complainant the full amount of Rs.One lakh covered by the cheque in respect of which the complaint was instituted. It is submitted that the sentence of imprisonment is too harsh. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the amount covered by the cheque.