IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY, 2010 / 13TH MAGHA, 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 399 of 2010 ----------------------------------- (CRA.751/2008 of IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.258/2006 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ---------------------------------------------- RASUL SHERIF, S/O.MEERA SAHIB, AGED 57 YEARS, MEERA COTTAGE, T.K.M.C.P.O., KARICODU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ING VYSYA BANK LTD., RETAIL BANKING DIVISION, M.G.ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A.VARADARAJAN, 51 YEARS, MANAGER COLLECTIONS. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHIK. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 399 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.10.2009 of the Court of IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl.A.No.751 of 2008 and against the judgment dated 21.8.2008 in C.C.No.258 of 2006 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Ernakulam. 2. The revision petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the N.I.Act') and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days and also to pay a fine of Rs.11,300/-. In case of default to pay the amount, he is directed to undergo a further period of 15 days simple imprisonment. It is also directed that if the fine amount is realised, a sum of Rs.11,232/- shall be released to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. The Crl.R.PNO.399 of 2010 :-2-: appeal preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by the lower appellate court by its judgment dated 27.10.2009 in Crl.A.No.751/08, confirming the conviction, sentence and order for compensation. 3. The first respondent herein is the complainant. As per the allegation in the complaint, the revision petitioner/accused had availed of a sum of Rs.75,000/- as loan from the complainant-Bank agreeing to repay the loan amount in 24 equal monthly instalments and the cheques issued for the months of July, August and September 2004 each for Rs.3,744/- were dishonoured for want of fund when those cheques were presented for encashment. Thus, after complying with the statutory requirement, a complaint was preferred before the court below based upon which C.C.No.258 of 2006 was instituted. From the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P6 documents were marked. The revision petitioner/accused was examined as DW1 and Exts.D1 to D4 were marked as Crl.R.PNO.399 of 2010 :-3-: evidence from the side of the defence. After analysis of the evidence, the trial court found that the accused is guilty of the charge levelled against him and accordingly, he is sentenced. Though an appeal was preferred, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 27.10.2009. It is the above conviction and sentence, challenged in this revision petition. 4. I have heard Sri.P.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that out of the loan transaction, the revision petitioner had paid back Rs.48,200/- and now he is ready to pay the amount as ordered by the trial court. As there is no serious challenge against the conviction and sentence, I have to confirm the conviction ordered by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already paid substantial amount towards the loan transaction and as he is ready to pay the amount Crl.R.PNO.399 of 2010 :-4-: ordered by the court below, certain modifications can be made with respect to the sentence. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced and the revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and the sentence of fine ordered by the trial court is confirmed and the revision petitioner/accused is directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,300/- on the date of his appearance to receive the sentence. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of maintaining conviction ordered by the courts below and sentencing the revision petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs.11,300/-. In case the revision petitioner/accused fails to pay the fine amount, he is further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. If the fine amount is realised, a sum of Rs.11,232/- shall be released to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Crl.R.PNO.399 of 2010 :-5-: the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court within one month from today and to receive the sentence of imprisonment as ordered above and to make the payment of fine as directed above. If the petitioner fails to appear before the court below on or before 2.3.2010 and pay the fine amount, the court below is free to procure the presence of the revision petitioner and to take steps to execute the sentence ordered and the direction to pay compensation. sd/- V.K.Mohanan, Judge MBS/ -true copy- P.A.TO JUDGE. Crl.R.PNO.399 of 2010 :-6-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ -------- Crl.R.PNO.399 of 2010 :-7-: O R D E R DATED: -10-2009 Crl.R.PNO.399 of 2010 :-8-: