ANNAMMA SUNNY Vs. VASANTHAKUMARI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Revision Petitions arise out of conviction and sentence imposed in the two complaints in C.C.Nos.422/2007 and 423/2007 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, which were jointly tried.

(2.) In Crl.R.P.No.1655/2010, the petitioner is the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.422/2007 on the file of the above Magistrate Court, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by R-1 herein. The dishonoured cheque involved in C.C.No.422/2007 is Ext.P-6 dated 28.2.2004 for Rs.2,15,000/- whereas the dishonoured cheque involved in C.C.No.423/2007 is Ext.P-5 dated 31.1.2004 for Rs.3 lakhs. Thus altogether the total amount involved in both the cheques comes to Rs.5,15,000/-.

(3.) In Crl.R.P.No.1660/2010, the petitioner is the accused for the same offence in C.C.No.423/2007 on the file of the same Magistrate Court, instituted on the basis of a complaint preferred by the very same respondent-complainant. The complaints were jointly tried. The trial court as per the impugned common judgment rendered on 30.5.2009 had convicted the petitioner for the above said offence in both the complaints and had given a joint substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay total fine amount of Rs.6 lakhs and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and the fine amount so realised was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Sec.357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the verdict of the trial court the petitioner has preferred Criminal Appeal No.399/2009 to challenge the conviction and sentence in C.C.No.422/2007 and also filed Criminal Appeal No.398/2009 to challenge the conviction and sentence in C.C.No.423/2007. The appellate Sessions Court concerned (Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Ernakulam), as per the common judgment dated 22.12.2009 had dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. It is challenging the concurrent verdicts of both the courts below, that the petitioner has filed these two Criminal Revision Petitions by taking recourse to the remedy available under Sec.397 r/w Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C, 1973.