LAWS(KER)-2017-10-297

K.M. JOHNY Vs. P.N. SUKUMARAPILLAI

Decided On October 25, 2017
K.M. Johny Appellant
V/S
P.N. Sukumarapillai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been indicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.132/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thodupuzha, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent (complainant) herein. Ext.P-1 cheque dated 29.2.2012 is for Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The trial court, as per the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2014, has convicted the petitioner for the above said offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months and the fine amount so realised was ordered to the paid in full, to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred Crl.A.No.26/2015 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The appellate court concerned (Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thodupuzha), as per the impugned judgment rendered on 10.2.2017 has confirmed the conviction, but modified the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for 4 months by reducing the same to imprisonment till the rising of the court and has confirmed the direction to pay fine amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs with the default sentence clause of simple imprisonment for 2 months, etc. It is aggrieved by the above said judgments of both the courts below regarding the impugned conviction as well as sentence, that the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.R.P taking recourse to the remedies available under the enabling provisions conferred under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard Sri.C.M.Tomy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-accused, Sri.M.A.Khadirkunju, learned counsel appearing for R-1 (complainant) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. Perused the L.C.R.

(3.) The brief of the case of the complainant is to the effect that the complainant and the accused were friends and that the accused had sought a personal loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the complainant, whereupon, the complainant had given a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as personal loan to the accused on 31.1.2012, with the promise that it will be repaid within one month and that on the expiry of the said period of one month, the complainant had demanded payment of the debt amount, whereupon the accused had executed and issued instant Ext.P-1 cheque dated 29.2.2012 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in discharge of the said liability and the said cheque when presented resulted in dishonour. That the complainant after following the requisite procedural formalities, including the issuance of the statutory demand notice under Section 138 proviso (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has initiated the present complaint, which led to the conduct of the trial.