M. NAZARUDHEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.2384/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry, instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent herein.

(2.) Exhibit P1 dishonoured cheque dated 25.4.2011 is for Rs.7, 00, 000/-. The trial court, as per the impugned judgment dated 28.10.2013 in S.T.No.2384/2011, had convicted the petitioner for the abovesaid offence and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.7 lakhs to the complainant and in default of payment thereof, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and the fine amount so remitted or recovered, was directed to disburse to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner/accused had preferred Crl.Appeal No.578/2013 before the appellate court concerned, (Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha) . The appellate court concerned (Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha) , as per the impugned judgment rendered on 18.6.2015, upheld the conviction imposed on the petitioner, but had modified the substantive sentence of six months simple imprisonment by reducing the same to imprisonment till the rising of the court and has also confirmed the direction to pay fine of Rs.7 lakhs with default sentence clause of two months simple imprisonment and the fine amount so remitted or recovered was directed to be disbursed to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. It is challenging these concurrent verdicts of both the courts below that the petitioner has preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition by taking recourse to the remedies conferred under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

(3.) Heard Sri.T.M.Raman Kartha, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused, Sri.V.Philip Mathew, learned counsel appearing for R2/complainant and Sri.Jestin Mathew, the learned prosecutor appearing for R1/State.