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. 436 of 2005 ----------------------------- CRA.186/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PARAVUR CC.1202/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- VARGHESE M.J., MAROTTICKAL HOUSE, PAZHAKKAPPALLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------- 1. JOY MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, KOTTACKAL HOUSE, NAYATHODE P.O., ANGAMALY, ALUVA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH FOR R1 SRI.K.P.JOHNSON FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED 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. 436 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 31/1/2003 in C.C.No.1202/1998 convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant 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 10/6/2004 in Crl.Appeal No.186/2003. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner 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 entered against him by the courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned CRRP 436/2005 -2- counsel also submitted that Rs.10,000/- has been deposited already by the revision petitioner before the trial court as ordered by this Court on 28/2/2005 while suspending the sentence as per order in Crl.M.A.No.2579/2005. The revision petitioner is ready to pay/deposit the balance amount. It is prayed to grant four months' time to pay the balance amount and also to modify the sentence of imprisonment for three months which was confirmed by the appellate court to imprisonment till rising of court 4. The disputed cheque in this case was issued in the year 1998 for Rs.35,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that considering the elapse of 12 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 12 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 436/2005 -3- confirmed. Only the cheque amount of Rs.35,000/- has been ordered as compensation by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court. Considering the elapse of 12 years after the issuance of cheque, I find that the compensation amount ordered by the courts below at Rs.35,000/- should be enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. The revision petitioner can be granted four months' time to pay/deposit the amount of Rs.40,000/- less the amount if any already deposited by the revision petitioner and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The sentence of simple imprisonment for three 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 pay/deposit the total amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty CRRP 436/2005 -4- thousand only) within four months, less the amount if any already deposited as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 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 1/10/2011 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 3/10/2011 for execution of the sentence. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE ks CRRP 436/2005 -5- CRRP 436/2005 -6- CRRP 436/2005 -7- M.C.HARI RANI, J Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001 ORDER 17th DAY OF JUNE 2001 CRRP 436/2005 -8- CRRP 436/2005 -9-