IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3143 of 2004(C) ------------------------------- CRA.63/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT F AST TRACK COURT NO.II, (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD CC.220/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- JOHNY, MOLATHA VEEDU, KAMMANTHARA, VADAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. JOSE, PALLIKKATUKUZHI VEEDU, CHITADI, VANDAZHI AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK (POWER OF ATTORNEY OF HIS WIFE ELIYAMMA JOSEPH). 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.R.KURUP FOR R1 SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.R.P.NO. 3143 OF 2004 ======================= Dated this the 12th day of April 2011 ORDER It is submitted by both counsel that a similar transaction between the same parties in respect of the very same offence has been disposed of by this court as per order dated 22/10/2010 in Crl.R.P.No.3177/2004. That case has been disposed of by this Court on merits. In the light of the orders passed in that case, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction entered against the revision petitioner/first accused in the present case, i.e.in C.C.No.220/1995, it is submitted. Copy of that order has been incorporated along with this file and perused the same. The trial court found the first accused/revision petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was convicted CRRP 3143/2004 -2- thereunder. The trial court imposed the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months as per judgment dated 5/3/1999 in C.C.No.220/1995. The appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court against the first accused vide judgment dated 15/2/2003 in Crl.Appeal No.63/1999. The cheque is dated 9-4-1995 for Rs.50,000/-. In a case like this substantive sentence can be avoided by directing the revision petitioner/first accused to pay reasonable amount as compensation to the complainant/first respondent under Section 357(3)Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering the elapse of 15 years after the issuance of the cheque, I direct the revision petitioner to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that Rs.20,000/-has already been deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court as directed by this Court as per order dated 8/12/2004 in Crl.M.A.No.14289/2004 while suspending sentence. The learned counsel for the revision CRRP 3143/2004 -3- petitioner prays that three months time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay/deposit the balance amount and to modify the sentence of imprisonment for six months to imprisonment till rising of court. 3. The revision petitioner can be granted three months time to pay/deposit the entire amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- less the amount if any already deposited, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The sentence of simple imprisonment for six months is modified to imprisonment till rising of court. 4. 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 revision petitioner/first accused by the courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay/deposit the total amount of CRRP 3143/2004 -4- Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only), less the amount if any already deposited, as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 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 12/07/2011 to pay/deposit the total amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- less the amount if any already deposited and thus avoid the default sentence. The revision petitioner/first accused shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 13/07/2011 for execution of the sentence. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.