IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 779 of 2002() ----------------------------- CC.119/2000 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA, MUTTOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ I.C.JAMES, AYAMANATHIL HOUSE, PANNIMATTOM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- 1. SHAJI JOSE, ILLIMOOTTIL HOUSE, NEELOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DSITRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.779 of 2002 ========================== Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 ORDER The complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has preferred this revision petition calling in question the adequacy of sentence imposed on respondent No.1/accused. The trial court after holding the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced respondent No.1 to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from him and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated May 31,1999 in discharge of the said debt. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The statutory demand notice issued by the complainant did not evoke any response. 3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and his witness was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P6 were marked on his side. Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the accused. Crl.R.P.No.779/2002 2 However, there was no oral evidence on his side. 4. Though the respondent No.1/accused has been served notice through special messenger he has not appeared either in person or through counsel. 5. The learned Magistrate after an elaborate consideration of the evidence adduced by the complainant found the accused guilty. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate was not justified in imposing a flea bite sentence on the accused. 6. There is considerable force in the above contention. The amount involved in the cheque was Rs.1,00,000/-. The very intent and purpose of the legislation would be defeated, if adequate sentence is not imposed on the accused in a prosecution under the Act. The learned Magistrate having found the accused guilty, ought to have at least ensured that the complainant got back his money, if he was of the view that no substantive sentence was liable to be imposed on the accused. In any view of the matter, the order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained at all. Crl.R.P.No.779/2002 3 7. Therefore, while confirming the order of conviction, the sentence imposed on the accused is set aside. The learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders on sentence afresh after hearing the parties. The criminal revision petition is allowed. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs