IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 405 of 2002() ----------------------------- CRA.515/2001 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.456/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT-ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- K.K.JOSEPH, KALARIKAKUDIYIL HOUSE, KADATHY EAST, MARKET P.O., MOOVATTUPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.K.P.SATHEESAN, MR.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DIRECTOR, OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V.P.BABY, VADAKKUMKUZHIYIL VEEDU, KARUKAPPILLY VEEDU, AAIKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT M.K.PUSHPALATHA R2 BY ADVS. MR.T.S.RAJAN, SMT.M.ANJALI KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.2747/2002 IN CRRP.NO.405/2002 DISMISSED 1/04/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.405 OF 2002 (B) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 O R D E R Challenge in the revision is against the concurrent verdict of guilty rendered against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I.Act'. The learned Magistrate, after trial, negativing the plea of not guilty raised by the accused, found him guilty and convicted him of the offence, sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.18,750/-, the cheque amount, to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with default term of simple imprisonment for one month more. In appeal, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence without any modification. CRL.R.P.405/02 2 2. Several grounds are urged in the memorandum of revision. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused confined the submissions to the sentence alone urging for modification of the substantive term of imprisonment imposed as punishment. Having regard to the nature of the offence of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused, I find that the imposition of a substantive term of imprisonment is not necessary to advance the ends of the justice. So, confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, sentence is modified directing him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.18,750/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. with default term of imprisonment for one month. Compensation as fixed above, shall be paid to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. If any amount had been remitted, pursuant to the sentence imposed by the court below, it shall be given credit to in the compensation ordered. The accused shall appear and his sureties to produce him on CRL.R.P.405/02 3 1st June, 2009, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolancherry, and the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence as directed. Revision is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.405 OF 2002 (B) --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 1st April, 2009