MANOHARAN MADHAVA MANNADIAR Vs. ARUCHAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION was admitted and notice was ordered to respondent No. 1. He is served but remains absent. Heard counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THIS revision arises from the judgment of learned Judicial First Class magistrate, Chittur in S. T. No. 2617 of 2005 in a prosecution for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned magistrate found respondent No. 1 guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court. He was directed to pay compensation of rs. 70,000/- and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was directed that if compensation is realised Rs. 69,500/- shall be paid to the petitioner. Grievance of the petitioner is that the cheque was for rs. 1,50,000/- but compensation awarded is only Rs. 70,000/- and even out of that, only Rs. 69,500/- has been directed to be paid to the petitioner as compensation. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent No. 1 has preferred an appeal against the conviction and sentence and that appeal is pending in the Sessions Court, Palakkad as Crl. Appeal No. 151 of 2007. Counsel requests that the appeal may be withdrawn to this court to be heard along with this revision.

(3.) I am not inclined to withdraw the above appeal pending in the Court of sessions since the proper forum to hear the appeal from conviction and sentence at the instance of respondent No. 1/accused is the Sessions Court and its withdrawal might deprive respondent No. 1 of an opportunity to challenge the judgment in the appeal in revision if at all the decision in the appeal went against him. In my view the proper course is to make over this revision to the sessions Court, Palakkad for decision.