IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2902 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRA.226/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT/SPECIAL COURT FOR NDPS ACT CASES, THODUPUZHA. ST.1228/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NEDUMKANDOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- K.J. JOSEPH @ PAPPACHAN, KOORAMATATHIL HOUSE, KOCHARA (PO), KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.T.J.MICHAEL RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAVINDRAN, S/O.PARAMESHWARAN, VADUTHALAKARA, CHETUKUZHI KARA, AMATHALA VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. == = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2902 of 2009. = = = == = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009. O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused in ST.No.1228/2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nedumkandam. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner before the trial court alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilty. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.90,000/-, the cheque amount as compensation to the first respondent. 2. In appeal, the Addl.Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha confirmed the conviction and the substantive sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.90,000/-. The legality, correctness and propriety of the Crl.R.P.No.2902 of 2009. -: 2 :- above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal is now assailed in this revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the judgments impugned. The first respondent who was examined as Pw1 coupled with Exts.P1 to P5 had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was bounced for insufficiency of funds and returned with Ext.P2 memo and that demanding discharge of liability, a lawyer notice, copy of which is marked as Ext.P3 was issued. Despite the acknowledgment of the notice as evidenced by Ext.P5 the revision petitioner didn't care to discharge the liability. So the prosecution was rightly launched by the first respondent and he could establish that the revision petitioner had committed offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I find that the courts below had correctly Crl.R.P.No.2902 of 2009. -: 3 :- appreciated the evidence on record and rightly arrived a conclusion of guilt. Hence the conviction under challenge is sustainable. 4. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner is a coolie and substantive sentence awarded is excessive. I find some merit in the submission made by the learned counsel. Taking into account of the status of the revision petitioner and the fact that he was constrained to face the prosecution due to financial difficulty, I find that sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court with a direction to pay the compensation would meet the ends of justice. 5. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. The revision petitioner shall pay Rs.90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) as compensation to the first respondent. In default of payment of compensation, he shall undergo Crl.R.P.No.2902 of 2009. -: 4 :- simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation amount provided he executes a bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within three weeks. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-