IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3354 of 2003(A) --------------------------------------------- CRA.NO.528/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.NO. 889/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- P.SREEDHARAN NAIR, JAYA TRADERS, M.L.ROAD, KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.J.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THOMAS CHACKO,APPICHERIL, CHENGALAM(S).P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3354 of 2003 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 Order The revision petitioner was convicted by JFCM Court-III, Kottayam for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months. In the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but the sentence was modified directing the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay Rs.47,500/- as compensation. This revision is directed against the said conviction and sentence passed against him. 2. Heard the counsel on both sides. 3. The cheque in question was for Rs.47,500/-. The cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. All the statutory formalities were duly complied with. The learned Magistrate accepted the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant. After reappreciating the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge also concurred with the view taken by the learned Magistrate. I find no reason to upset that finding. As such the conviction is only to be confirmed. Crl.R.P.3354/03 2 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the sentence may be modified. Considering all the aspects, I find that the sentence can be modified. In the result, this revision is disposed of as stated below: The conviction is confirmed. In supersession of the sentence imposed by the courts below, the accused/revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.52,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The accused/revision petitioner will appear before JFCM Court-III, Kottayam on 9th November, 2011 to receive the sentence and to pay/deposit the amount of compensation. If any amount has already been deposited, only the balance amount need be deposited/paid. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.R.P.3354/03 3 Crl.R.P.3354/03 4