IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2011/30TH PHALGUNA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1277 of 2004 ------------------------------ CRA.430/2001 of Ist ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.411/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- C.N.SOMAN, AGED 40, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, CHAKYATH HOUSE, ANAKKARA VILLAGE, PERUVALLOOR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE OF KERALA ------------------------------------------ 1. VILANGAN TRADERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM SITUATED AT PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, AMALA NAGAR, THRISSUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER T.F.JOSHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSMT. P.N. SUMANGALA SRI.JIJO PAUL FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.R.P. NO. 1277 OF 2004 ======================= Dated this the 21st day of March 2011 ORDER The petitioner herein is the accused who was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is challenging the concurrent finding of the courts below to that effect and also the sentence imposed on him. 2. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,17,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. The accused challenged the finding of conviction and sentence before the appellate court and the appellate court CRRP 1277/2004 -2- dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below. That concurrent finding of conviction and sentence have been challenged by the revision petitioner/accused before this Court in this revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 4. At the time of argument, it is submitted by both counsel that the revision petitioner herein has paid the entire amount of compensation as ordered by the courts below and that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month awarded against the revision petitioner by the courts below may be modified for imprisonment till rising of the court. 5. In a matter like this substantive sentence can be avoided. The complainant has already realised the amount of compensation as submitted by both counsel. In the circumstances, sentence imposed by the courts below against the revision petitioner for rigorous imprisonment for one month is modified and reduced for imprisonment till rising of the court. CRRP 1277/2004 -3- As the amount of compensation is already paid by the revision petitioner and realised by the complainant, the revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 25/3/2011 for execution of sentence. 6. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part as above. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.