HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
MANI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION 1339/2001
Revision - Conviction - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - The court modified the sentence imposed under Section 138 considering no special circumstance warranted imprisonment, affirming conviction but adjusting the term to imprisonment till court rises.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act, with a sentence of one month imprisonment and compensation. The revision sought to challenge this conviction and modify the sentence due to non-service of notice to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the lack of steps taken for service of notice and found no special circumstances to justify the initially imposed prison term, opting instead for a lesser punishment while maintaining the conviction.
Issues: Whether the imprisonment term was warranted under Section 138 of the NI Act considering the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the conviction under Section 138 was affirmed, the severity of the punishment was modified due to absence of special circumstances warranting a harsher sentence.
Final Decision: Revision is disposed of with modified sentence.
ORDER
Revision is by the accused who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'NI Act'), concurrently, by the two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused, as modified by the sessions Judge in appeal, is imprisonment for one month, with direction to pay the compensation fixed, with default term.
2. The revision was admitted to file directing the petitioner to take steps for issuing notice to the respondent/complainant. Noticing that steps for service on the respondent has not be taken, by order dated 05-09-2002, petitioner was directed to cure defects within two weeks making it clear that if that order is not complied with the revision shall stand dismissed. Till date, steps have not been taken as directed, and notice not served on the complainant. When that be so, the revision challenging the conviction of the petitioner is only to be turned down. However, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the revision petitioner for modification of the substantive term of imprisonment urging that the offence with which he stands convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act as such does not warrant such a harsh punishment, I am inclined to modify the sentence imposed against the accused.
3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned magistrate and also the learned sessions Judge, I find, no special circumstance has been made out to impose imprisonment of the petitioner for a term as fixed by the courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. True, he has taken false defence to wriggle out of the offence imputed against him. But, that is not a ground to impose against him a prison term. In the circumstance, affirming the conviction, sentence imposed against the petitioner is modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation awarded, with default term and also the cost directed to be paid. Petitioner shall appear before the magistrate on 12-12- 2011 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the compensation and the cost. The magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above for his appearance, to enable him to pay the compensation and cost within such period. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, the magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.
Revision is disposed of.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.