IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3492 of 2005 ------------------------------ CRA.489/2005 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM CC.1343/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- K. VENUGOPAL, VIMALA BHAVAN, NADUVILAKKARA, THEVALAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THOMAS KUTTY, S/O. DANIEL, VARAMBU VEETIL, PULIYOOR VANCHI KIZHAKKUM MURI, THODIYOOR, KARUNAGAPPALLY. ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R2 SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J ==== ============== Crl.R.P.No. 3492 of 2005 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of June 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court as per judgment dated 30/6/2005 in C.C.No.1343/2000 convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate court and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 29/10/2005 in Crl.Appeal No.489/2005. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor . 3. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the revision petitioner is not challenging the concurrent finding of conviction CRRP.3492/2005 -2- entered against him by the courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel also submitted that Rs.7,500/- has been deposited already by the revision petitioner before the trial court as ordered by this Court on 27/12/2005 while suspending the sentence as per order in Crl.M.A.No.23082/2005. The revision petitioner is ready to deposit the balance amount. It is prayed to grant two months time to pay the balance amount and also to modify the sentence of simple imprisonment for two months to imprisonment till rising of court 4. The disputed cheque in this case is for Rs.20,000/-dated 10/7/2000. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that considering the elapse of 10 years after the issuance of the cheque, compensation amount may be enhanced. 5. A concurrent finding of guilty and conviction is there against the revision petitioner by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. About 10 years is already elapsed after the issuance of the disputed cheque. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. Therefore, the verdict of guilty and conviction do not warrant any interference and the same is CRRP.3492/2005 -3- confirmed. Only the cheque amount of Rs.20,000/- has been ordered as compensation by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court. Considering the elapse of 10 years after the issuance of cheque, I find that the compensation amount ordered by the courts below at Rs.20,000/- should be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The revision petitioner can be granted two months' time to deposit the balance amount if Rs.7,500/- is already deposited by the revision petitioner as ordered by this Court in Crl.M.A.No.23082/2005, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The sentence of simple imprisonment for two months is modified to imprisonment till rising of court. 6. In the result, a) This revision petition is allowed in part. b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are confirmed. (c) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to CRRP.3492/2005 -4- pay/deposit the total amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) less the amount, if any, already deposited, as compensation within two months and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The amount in deposit, if any, and the balance amount if deposited shall be released to the complainant on proper application. The revision petitioner shall have time till 1/8/2011 to pay/deposit the amount of compensation and thus avoid the default sentence. The revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 2/8/2011 for execution of the sentence. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE ks CRRP.3492/2005 -5- CRRP.3492/2005 -6- CRRP.3492/2005 -7- M.C.HARI RANI, J Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001 ORDER CRRP.3492/2005 -8- 17th DAY OF JUNE 2001 CRRP.3492/2005 -9-