IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1384 of 2001 ------------------------------ CC.308/1999 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ---------------------- JOLLY MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI, MANIMALAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, ENALLOOR KARA, ENALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI. RAJESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS:ACCUSED & STATE --------------------------------------- 1. P.K. PAVITHRAN, KAVUMTHADATHIL HOUSE, UDUMPANOOR KARA, UDUMPANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHEER R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No. 1384 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of August 2008 O R D E R The 1st respondent faced a trial in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) on the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner alleging that the 1st respondent borrowed Rs.40,000/- from him and on his demanding repayment of the amount, the 1st respondent issued cheque dated 01.3.99 for the discharge of the debt, that cheque on presentation was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and that in spite of statutory notice intimating the dishonour and demanding payment, the 1st respondent did not pay the amount. The 1st respondent was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. The revision petitioner is not satisfied with the sentence awarded as no imprisonment was awarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and has preferred this revision petition. 2. Heard. 3. The point for consideration is whether there is any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the sentence awarded. Crl.R.P: 1384/2001 -:2:- 4. The conviction of the 1st respondent has not been challenged. What remains for consideration is only whether the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in confining the sentence to fine of Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the matter has been settled outside court and hence he is not pressing his argument regarding sentence. Even otherwise, the extent of sentence is a matter within the discretion of the court concerned of course, to be exercised judiciously. In this case the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has stated that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, he is of the view that fine of Rs.5,000/- alone need be awarded to the 1st respondent. I am not inclined to think that the discretion has not been exercised judiciously. There is nothing illegal, irregular or improper in the view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, requiring interference by the revisional Court. 5. No other point arises for consideration. The revision petition fails. It is dismissed. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) ttb Crl.R.P: 1384/2001 -:3:-