IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 853 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.2/1998 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.97/1995 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT./ACCUSED: --------------------- P.A.YOUSEF, S/O.AHAMMAD KUNJU, MANNUPLACKAL HOUSE, KUDUMBIYAMKUZHY, KARALIMAKKAL, PONKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SHIBI JACOB, MANNUR HOUSE, KOORALI P.O., ELAMGULAM, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.LLOYD JOSEPH VIVERA FOR R2 SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.853 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008. ORDER Heard counsel on both sides. Perused the records. 2. Revision petitioner stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ( hereinafter referred as `the Act’). Case is that revision petitioner received Rs.15,000/- as advance promising to arrange job for first respondent in a Saudi Arabian company but failed to arrange job. For discharge of that debt, revision petitioner issued cheque (Ext.P1) dated 24.7.1994 for the said amount. That cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Revision petitioner did not care to pay the amount in spite of dishonour intimation and demand. Learned Magistrate found revision petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-. In appeal, the substantive sentence was modified as simple imprisonment for three months and instead of payment of fine, revision petitioner was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation. It is contended in this revision petition that conviction of revision petitioner is not legal and proper. 3. Case pleaded by revision petitioner is that the cheque in question was obtained from him under coercion at the police station. That, first respondent had preferred a complaint to the police on revision petitioner not Crl.R.P.No.853/2001 2 arranging job and refusing to repay the advance amount is not disputed by the first respondent also. But according to him, consequent to his filing complaint at the police station there was mediation between himself and revision petitioner which lead to revision petitioner issuing Ext.P1, cheque. First respondent has given evidence as PW1. Apart from the suggestions in cross-examination about alleged coercion, nothing is brought out to think that Ext.P1 is the result of any coercion. Conviction of revision petitioner therefore, required no interference. 4. Counsel for revision petitioner then submitted that sentence imposed is excessive. Counsel submitted that after disposal of appeal, revision petitioner was taken to custody and was in jail for two or three days. In the facts and circumstances, I consider it just and proper to modify the substantive sentence while retaining the direction for payment of compensation. Resultantly, Revision Petition is allowed in part on the following lines:- (1) Substantive sentence awarded to revision petitioner is confined to the period of imprisonment already undergone. (2) Direction for payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) is confirmed. (3) Revision petitioner is granted two months time to deposit the said amount in trial court for payment to first respondent. In case of default, revision petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for two months. (4) In case any amount is already deposited by revision Crl.R.P.No.853/2001 3 petitioner in the trial court, that deposit will be adjusted in the compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Bail bond is cancelled. Crl.M.P.No.3934 of 2001 shall stand cancelled. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.853/2001 4 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.853 of 2001 ORDER 29th September, 2008.