IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3016 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.423/1997 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THALASSERY CC.772/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- K.V. PRABHAKARAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, ERUVATTY VILLAGE, P.O. ERUVATTY. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------ 1. V. VIJU, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, KAIPROTH HOUSE, P.O. MAMBRAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN FOR R1 SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.3016 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.772/1996 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamaba and appellant in Crl.Appeal No.423/1997 of Sessions Court, Thalassery. He was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months by the trial court. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed for default for his absence. The accused has now come up in revision challenging the judgment of the lower appellate court. 2. It is seen from the judgment of the lower appellate court that the appeal was dismissed as the counsel was absent. In the light of the contentions raised by the revision petitioner in the appeal, I feel that an opportunity should be given to the revision petitioner to contest the appeal before the lower appellate court. But for the latches on the part of the revision petitioner, in my view, he should be directed to deposit a portion of the cheque amount. Therefore, this revision petition in the Crl.R.P.No.3016/03 Page numbers interest of justice, in my view, can be allowed on revision petitioner depositing Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) before the trial court towards the amount allegedly due to the complainant. The complainant will be entitled to withdraw the amount only after the disposal of the case. On such deposit, this revision petition will be allowed and the appeal will be remanded to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration. For producing the memo, post on 23/12/2009. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE Memo not produced. Hence the revision petition is dismissed confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. But the sentence is modified to the effect that the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of court and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Crl.R.P.No.3016/03 Page numbers Fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to the complainant as compensation as provided under Sec.357(1) Cr.P.C. Two month's time is granted for payment of fine. Bail bonds of the accused are cancelled. The revision petitioner shall appear before the trial court on or before 31.1.2010 to receive the sentence. 4.1.2010. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE Crl.R.P.No.3016/03 Page numbers