High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
N.L.PARVATHY, W/O. P.V.RAMESH v. SRINIVASALUM, S/O. JAYARAMCHETTY - Crl Rev Pet No. 2395 of 2004  RD-KL 4376 (27 February 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMCrl Rev Pet No. 2395 of 2004()
1. N.L.PARVATHY, W/O. P.V.RAMESH,
1. SRINIVASALUM, S/O. JAYARAMCHETTY,
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
For Respondent :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
O R D E R
Crl.R.P.No.2395 of 2004
Dated this the 27th day of February, 2007
ORDERThe revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The prosecution case is that the accused along with her husband and father-in-law came to the house of the complainant and borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- on 01.03.1999 and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- on 04.05.1999 agreeing to repay the amounts with 24% interest. When the amount was demanded Rs.45,000/- was paid and also issued a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- on 21.07.1999. When the complainant presented the cheque on 22.07.1999 for collection through Nedungadi Bank, Chandra Nagar Branch, the same was dishonoured on 23.07.1999, for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused. The evidence adduced in the matter consisted of the testimony of PW1 the complainant, PW2 the Bank Manager and Exts.P1 to P6 marked on behalf of the complainant and that DW1, Crl.R.P.No.2395 of 2004 :2: Deputy Director of the Central Silk Board, Palakkad in which the accused is working. On a consideration of the evidence adduced, I find that there is no ground to interfere as the complainant has established the execution of the cheque and the fact that it was for discharge of the liability. The defence evidence of DW1 is to the effect that the official superior was present in the office as per attendance records. It was admitted by DW1 that the same would not disable the accused to come out of the office. Hence, the statutory presumptions stand not rebutted by evidence adduced by the accused. Hence, the conviction is confirmed. Considering the plea of the counsel for the revision petitioner, the sentence is modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The latter part of the sentence is retained. The revision petitioner is granted four months time from today onwards to make the payment. She shall appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Palakkad on 28.06.2007 to receive sentence. The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.