IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 270 of 2006() ----------------------------- CRA.343/2002 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC.603/1999 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VARKALA .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT 1 & 2/ACCUSED 1 & 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. SPAN ASIA TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT.LTD., VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,SHAJAHAN. 2. SHAJAHAN, S/O. ALIYARUKUNJU M.D., M/S. SPAN ASIA TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT.LTD., VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. BY ADVS. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI, SMT.ANNIE M.ABRAHAM, SMT.REKHA KRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUSHA KUMAR, S/O. VIDYADHARAN, SUSHAMALAYAM, THOTTUKKADU, KARAVARAM P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJENDRAN (VENNICODE) R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.270 OF 2006 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July 2011 ORDER The revision is by the first and second accused, a Company and its Managing Director, convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, 'NI Act', concurrently, by the two inferior courts. The first respondent prosecuted the aforesaid accused with another, the wife of the second accused, for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, on dishonour of a cheque issued by the Company. Negativing the plea of not guilty canvassed by the accused, the trial Magistrate convicted them for the offence imputed, and sentenced the first among them, the Company, to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and the others, second and third accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found the third accused not guilty and she was acquitted. Conviction was confirmed against first and second accused, the company and its Managing Director, but, sentence was limited only as against the second accused. The second accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, reducing the term of imprisonment imposed by the learned Crl.R.P No.270 OF 2006 2 Magistrate, and also to pay enhanced compensation, fixed at Rs.1,20,000/- with default term to undergo simple imprisonment for three months more. As against the conviction concurrently rendered by the two courts, with the modification of sentence as aforesaid by the learned Sessions Judge, the first and second accused have preferred this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also the learned counsel for the first respondent/complainant. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, knowing the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, canvassed for modification of the sentence imposed against the second accused urging that his incarceration for the term fixed, as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, is not warranted, taking into account that the offence for which he was convicted is one arising on dishonour of a cheque. It is further stated that though he could not be in a position to canvass for absolving him from the offence with which he was found guilty and convicted, over the transaction involved he did not have any direct role, but, was implicated since he was the Managing Director of the company. Still, knowing the limited scope of challenge against the finding on facts entered by the two courts, the learned counsel confined her submissions on the question of Crl.R.P No.270 OF 2006 3 sentence alone. 3. Perusing the judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate, it is seen, the cheque which was dishonoured, giving rise to the prosecution of the revision petitioners and, ultimately, resulting in their conviction, was issued as early in 1998. The amount involved by that dishonoured cheque was Rs.1,00,000/-. Compensation fixed by the learned Sessions Judge, with the substantive term of imprisonment imposed, is only Rs.1,20,000/-. Though I am inclined to accede to the request of the counsel to modify the substantive term of imprisonment imposed against the second accused, the Managing Director of the company, in the given facts of the case, I find, compensation amount to be fixed must be on the higher side. Having regard to the passage of time, nearly 13 years after the issue of the cheque, while confirming the conviction, sentence imposed against second accused is modified to imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- with default term of imprisonment for a period of three months. Compensation as fixed above shall be paid by the second accused within a period of six weeks. A sum of Rs.25,000/-, it is submitted, had been deposited on 25-09-2006 before the court below pursuant to orders passed by this court as a Crl.R.P No.270 OF 2006 4 condition imposed for suspension of sentence. Any such deposit, if made, shall be given credit to the compensation fixed as above. The second accused shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 06-09-2011 to serve out the sentence of imprisonment for one day, till rising of the court, and also to report the payment of compensation. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, the Magistrate shall take steps to execute the sentence. Revision is disposed of as above. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge