Jolly Varghese vs Anilkumar

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

Revision petitioner was the accused in C.C.No.319/1999 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala. The prosecution alleges that the accused had on 22.03.1996, borrowed an amount of Rs.22,500/- and in repayment of the said amount, issued a cheque dated 23.12.1998 for the said amount, drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, Cherthala Branch. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment it returned with a memo stating that ‘drawer’s signature differs’ and that there were no sufficient funds in the account to honour the cheque and that it was done to cheat the complainant. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed the offences.

In order to prove the case of the complainant, PW 1 and PW2 were examined and Ext.P1 to Ext.P8 were marked.

The trial court, after analysing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/-, which was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., in default to undergo imprisonment for one month.

On appeal to the Sessions Court, Alappuzha as Crl. Appeal No.260/2003, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition.

On a perusal of the nature of evidence tendered, it is noticed that the trial court as well as the appellate court had appreciated the evidence adduced and came to the conclusion that the accused issued the cheque knowing fully well that there was no sufficient funds in the account to honour the cheque and that the totality of the circumstances revealed that the accused had borrowed the amount without any intention to repay which was supplemented by the issuance of a cheque on an account, which did not have sufficient funds to honour the said cheque. The said fact has been found against the accused concurrently by both the courts and there is no perversity. On the other hand the said finding is valid and proper, considering the nature of evidence tendered. Therefore, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the conviction of the accused ought to be interfered with.

However, taking into reckoning the period in which the alleged offence had occurred, I am of the opinion that a lenient view can be adopted and the sentence of imprisonment of six months can be modified to a sentence till the rising of the court.

In view of the above, while confirming the conviction of the accused in C.C.No.319/1999 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala for the offence under Section 420 IPC, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him shall stand modified to one of imprisonment till the rising of the court. The sentence of fine imposed, to be paid as compensation to the complainant, shall stand confirmed. The revision petition is allowed in part.