LAWS(KER)-2017-1-248

ANTO PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On January 27, 2017
Anto Paul Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as per the impugned judgment dated 31.3.2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kochi, in Calendar Case, C.C.No.1073/2002. The trial court, while convicting the petitioner, had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and had further directed that he should pay compensation of Rs.2.4 lakhs, which shall be payable to the complainant as per Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., and in default thereof, the petitioner was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

(2.) The appellate court (Court II Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam) as per the impugned judgment dated 3.3.2007 in Crl.Appeal No.440/2006, while affirming the conviction, had modified the sentence by ordering that the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs. 2.4 lakhs to the complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., and in default of which, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. It is this conviction and sentence that is impugned in the instant revision petition.

(3.) The gist of the prosecution case is that the complainant is a partnership firm dealing in the business of the wholesale textiles and that the accused is the proprietor of the firm, by name, "M/s.Kuttichakku Lona Anthony Sons", which used to purchase goods on credit basis from the complainant and that, during the course of the said dealings between the parties, a sum of Rs.1,97,900/- was payable by the accused to the complainant. That thereupon the accused has issued a cheque drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd., Thrissur, for the said amount and on being presented, the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Statutory notice was issued, to which the accused had not responded, which resulted in the institution of the instant complaint.