Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7616
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
P SASI – Appellant
Versus
SEBASTIAN – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 614/2002
A conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be upheld while the sentence may be modified based on the accused's circumstances.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments - Cheque Dishonour - Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 - The court confirmed conviction under Section 138 but reduced the sentence due to financial hardship of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonored cheque of Rs.30,000. The trial court sentenced him to six months imprisonment and a fine, with Rs.40,000 compensation to the first respondent. He appealed, and the sentence was confirmed but later reduced in a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the revision petition concerning the sentence but upheld the conviction. It acknowledged the financial difficulties faced by the petitioner, indicating that a reduced sentence was appropriate.
Issues: Whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner was excessive given his financial difficulties, despite upholding the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can reduce a sentence while maintaining a conviction if the circumstances, particularly financial hardship, warrant such leniency.
Final Decision: The revision petition is partially allowed, reducing the sentence but confirming the conviction.
O R D E R
The first respondent prosecuted the revision petitioner in S.T.No.1329/1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pala, accusing offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . The prosecution is based upon a cheque for Rs.30,000/-. Though the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty, he was found guilty by the trial court. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.50,000/-. Out of the fine amount if realised, Rs.40,000/- was ordered to be paid to the first respondent as compensation.
2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.Appeal No.178/1997 before the Sessions Judge, Kottayam. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam to whom the appeal was later made over, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months and ordered to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the first respondent. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition is preferred.
3. Today when the revision petition came up for hearing Adv. Smt. Laya Saimon on behalf of Adv. Sri. M. Narendra Kumar submitted that the revision petitioner is not assailing the conviction and that the sentence alone is assailed. Submission is recorded. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, financial difficulties persuaded the revision petitioner to face the prosecution as he could not discharge the liability in time and he is now prepared to discharge the liability.
4. Having heard, I find merit in the submission.
I find that the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.5,000/- with direction to pay the compensation would meet the ends of justice.
In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.5,000/-(five thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprison for six weeks. The order of the appellate court to pay compensation is sustained with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court which shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance.
