MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Summary Trial Case, S.T. No.120/96 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein. The amount covered by Ext.P1 dishonoured cheque dated 4.12.1995 is Rs. 15,000/-. The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 30.6.1998 has convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and has sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, out of which, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be given to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 In default of payment of the fine amount, the accused was ordered to undergo S.I. for a further period of one month. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No.109/98 before the appellate Sessions Court concerned (Sessions Court, Thodupuzha). The appellate court as per the impugned judgment dated 14.6.2002 had confirmed the conviction, but had modified and reduced the substantive sentence of six months' S.I. to S.I. for a period of two months and had also reduced the fine to Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo S.I. for a period of one month. It is aggrieved by the above said concurrent verdicts that the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition, by invoking the powers of this Court under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973

(2.) The revision petition was admitted by this Court on 4.9.2002 and this Court had also passed interim order dated 4.9.2002 on Crl.M.P. No.5975/2002 in this revision directing that the sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended on the petitioner executing bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The 2nd respondent (original complainant) has died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as respondents 3 to 6 in the revision petition. It appears that only the children of the deceased complainant have been impleaded and the wife of the complainant has not impleaded in this revision petition. Though notice on respondents 3 & 4 has been duly completed, notice has not been returned on respondents 5 and 6 after service. Till date, the petitioner has not taken any steps to cure the said defect. The LCR was received by the Registry of this Court on 18.10.2010. Despite service of notice on R3 and R4, there is no appearance for those parties.

(3.) Heard Sri.M.R.Hariraj, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner (accused) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the R1 (State).