IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2238 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.249/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.873/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRA MOHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, MUTHUTTAKALAYIL VEEDU, VALLAMKULAM KIZHAKKE MURI, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.IYPE JOSEPH, MR.V.MANOJ KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRASANNA S.NAIR, D/O. (LATE) NARAYANAN NAIR, ARPPITHA VEEDU,ARATTU MURI, ARANMULA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.2238 OF 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an appeal preferred against the judgment in Crl.A.No.249/2007 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc), Mavelikkara. It is the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. Four lakhs and issued Ext.P1 towards the discharge of the liability which when presented for encashment, returned with the endorsement of insufficiency of funds and thereafter statutory compliance has been launched. 2. According to the accused, he had borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/= on 12.3.2004 and had repaid the interest without any fail and at that time he had given a blank cheque which had been given as security and that had been used by the complainant to file the case. 3. Both the courts below had evaluated the evidence and arrived at a decision that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. Four lakhs and towards the discharge of the liability 2 CRL.R.P.NO.2238/09 had executed the cheque. The findings on facts are on appreciation of the evidence and it is not tainted by any mis- appreciation or perversity. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the findings on facts which are rendered by the courts below. 4. Then the last question is regarding the punishment. There is no point in sending the accused in jail if he is really interested in wiping of the liability. I think interest of justice can be met by directing the accused to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay the compensation as contemplated under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and in default to undergo S.I for three months. 5. In the result, the criminal revision petition is disposed of as follows: 1. The finding of guilt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is confirmed. 2. The sentence is modified and the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs. Four lakhs under Section 357(3) of Code 3 CRL.R.P.NO.2238/09 of Criminal Procedure which on realisation shall be disbursed to the complainant on proper application. If the accused defaults in making the payment, he shall undergo S.I for a period of two months. He shall appear before the court below to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount on 30.11.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 4 CRL.R.P.NO.2238/09 5 CRL.R.P.NO.2238/09 M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 6 CRL.R.P.NO.2238/09 7 CRL.R.P.NO.2238/09