LAWS(KER)-2017-8-222

K P EASY Vs. P G PETER

Decided On August 22, 2017
K P Easy Appellant
V/S
P G Peter Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in S.T.No. 1927 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kochi, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the 1 st respondent herein. Ext.P1 is the dishonoured cheque dated 14.08.1999 is for Rs.48,000/-.

(2.) The trial court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 31.10.2001 has convicted the petitioner for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs.48,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No.820 of 2001 before the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The appellate Sessions Court as per the impugned judgment rendered on 19.03.2003 has confirmed the conviction and modified the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for six months by reducing the same to four months and has also confirmed the direction to pay the compensation of Rs.48,000/-. It is aggrieved by these verdicts of both the courts below, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition by invoking the remedies under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) The revision petition was filed as early as on 09.07.2003. This Court as per order dated 10.07.2003 has admitted the present revision petition and had ordered notice to the respondents. This Court had also passed interim order dated 10.07.2003 on Crl.M.A.No. 6991/2003 in this revision petition directing that the execution of the impugned sentence in this case shall be suspended on the petitioner executing bond for Rs.25,000/- and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned and on depositing Rs.50,000/- before the trial court within one month from 10.07.2003. It is now intimated by the trial court that the accused has not remitted the said amount.