IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 398 of 2003() ----------------------------- CC.365/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM CRA.485/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- N.B.GOPI, S/O. BALAN, NEDIYEDATHU HOUSE, CHOWANNUR, KUNNAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. VINOY C.PAPPACHAN, MANAGING PARTNER, BOOPRABHU FINACE VICTORY SHOPPING COMPLEX, BAIJU ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMAD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P.No.398 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August 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 convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay compensation of Rs.22,350/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C as per judgment dated 20/09/2000 in C.C.No.365/1997. The conviction was confirmed by the appellate court and the sentence was modified by directing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and to pay Rs.28,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days (vide judgment dated 14/01/2003 in Crl.A.No485/2000). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused. No appearance for the 1st respondent/complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor is also heard. Crl.R.P.No.398/2003 2 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 counsel also submitted that half of the cheque amount has already been deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court as ordered by this Court on 06/02/2003 while suspending the sentence as per order in Crl.M.P.No.1380 of 2003. The revision petitioner prays to reduce the substantive sentence of imprisonment and also prays for four months time to pay/deposit the balance amount of compensation. The learned counsel further prays to reduce the compensation amount of Rs.28,000/- as ordered by the appellate court and submitted that the cheque amount was Rs.22,350/- only. 4. The disputed cheque in this case is dated 21/04/1997 for Rs.22,350/-. A concurrent finding of guilty and conviction is there against the accused/revision petitioner by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. About 14 years is already elapsed after the issuance of the disputed cheque. Hence I find no reason Crl.R.P.No.398/2003 3 to reduce the compensation amount of rs.28,000/- as ordered by the appellate court and the same is confirmed. 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 confirmed. In a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, substantive sentence can be avoided by directing the accused to pay reasonable amount as compensation to the complainant. Accordingly, the substantive sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court. The revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay/deposit the balance amount of compensation, less the amount if any already deposited by the revision petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 5. In the result, a) This revision petition is allowed in part. b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are confirmed. Crl.R.P.No.398/2003 4 (c) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the revision 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 amount of compensation of Rs.28,000/- (less the amount, if any already deposited) within a period of four months 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 22/12/2011 to pay/deposit the entire amount of compensation of Rs.28,000/- and thus avoid the default sentence. The revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 23/12/2011 for execution of the sentence. (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.R.P.No.398/2003 5 Crl.R.P.No.398/2003 6 Crl.R.P.No.398/2003 7 M.C.HARI RANI, J Crl.R.P.No.398/2003 8 Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001 ORDER 17th DAY OF JUNE 2001 Crl.R.P.No.398/2003 9