- (1.) LEAVE granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Appellant 1 was convicted by the trial court under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000.00; in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The appeal preferred by Appellant 1 was partly allowed by the Sessions Judge, Thrissur, who upheld the verdict of guilty and conviction of Appellant 1 but set aside the sentence imposed on him and remanded the case to the trial court to continue the proceedings and impose an appropriate sentence and an appropriate direction under S. 357(3) Cr.P.C. coupled with an appropriate default sentence.
(2.) APPELLANT 1 challenged the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 316 of 2000. Although, the complainant did not challenge the appellate judgment, by an order dtd. 26/9/2007 the High Court imposed substantive sentence of one week on Appellant 1 and directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000.00. Thereafter, Appellant 1 and the complainant jointly filed a petition, which was registered as Crl. M.C. No. 695 of 2008 for permission to compound the offence by stating that the complainant has already received the amount of compensation. The same was dismissed by the High Court vide order dtd. 22/2/2008.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , neither the complainant filed revision challenging the order of the trial court nor the High Court issued any rule for enhancement of sentence in the revision petition filed by Appellant 1. This being the position, the High Court was not justified in enhancing the sentence and directing the appellant to suffer imprisonment for a period of one week.;