IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 966 of 2005 ----------------------------- CRA.281/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOTTAYAM CC.527/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED. --------------------------------------- THOMAS VARGHESE.K. S/O.THOMAS VARGHESE, PROPREITOR, ENFIT, RUBBER FACTORY, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT. ------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.P.PHILIP, THEKKENEELETHU, KEEZHUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. ANEY PAUL ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J ==== ============== Crl.R.P.No.966 of 2005 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of March 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court as per judgment dated 28/6/2002 in C.C.No.527/2001 convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months . The conviction was confirmed by the appellate court and the sentence was modified by directing the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor is also heard. 3. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the revision petitioner is not challenging the concurrent finding of conviction entered against him by the courts below for the offence under CRRP 966/2005 -2- Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel also submitted that Rs.1,000/- has been deposited already by the revision petitioner before the trial court as ordered by this Court on 7/4/2005 while suspending the sentence as per order in Crl.M.A.No.4804/2005. The revision petitioner is ready to deposit the balance amount . It is also prayed to modify the sentence of imprisonment for one month to imprisonment till rising of court. 4. The disputed cheque in this case is for Rs.5,000/-dated 28/2/1994. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that considering the elapse of 16 years after the issuance of the cheque, compensation amount may be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. 5. A concurrent finding of guilty and conviction is there against the revision petitioner by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. About 16 years is already elapsed after the issuance of the disputed cheque. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. Therefore, the verdict of guilty and conviction do not warrant any interference and the same is confirmed. Only the cheque amount of Rs.5,000/- has been CRRP 966/2005 -3- ordered as compensation by the appellate court. Considering the elapse of 16 years after the issuance of cheque, I find that the compensation amount ordered by the courts below at Rs.5,000/- should be enhanced to Rs.6,000/-. The revision petitioner can be granted one month's time to deposit the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- if Rs.1,000/- is already deposited by the revision petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The sentence of imprisonment for one month is modified to imprisonment till rising of court. 6. In the result, a) This revision petition is allowed in part. b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are confirmed. (c) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay/deposit the total amount of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) less the amount, if any, is already deposited, as CRRP 966/2005 -4- compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The amount in deposit, if any, and the balance amount if deposited shall be released to the complainant on proper application. The petitioner shall have time till 29/4/2011 to pay/deposit the amount of compensation and thus avoid the default sentence. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 30/04/2011 for execution of the sentence. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE ks CRRP 966/2005 -5- CRRP 966/2005 -6- CRRP 966/2005 -7- M.C.HARI RANI, J Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001 ORDER 17th DAY OF JUNE 2001 CRRP 966/2005 -8- CRRP 966/2005 -9-