IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 971 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------------ [CRL.A.NO.280/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM ST.NO.3077/2008 OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, ERNAKULAM] .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS-ACCUSED 1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M/S.PARAPPURATH CHITTIES (P) LTD., 40/7875,LAKSHMI BUILDINGS,PADMA JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. 2. M.R.RADHAKRISHNAN,MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.PARAPPURATHU CHITTIES (P) LTD., PARAPPURAM KOTTAKANAL ROAD,END LISIE HOSPITAL ROAD,KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.N.HAREENDRAN, SRI. T.H. ARUNKUMAR, SRI.K.A.ALEXANDER. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. B.NAINAR,S/O.SRI.BHOOTHALINGAM,AGED 54, M/S.TILAK REST HOUSE,C.V.E.N COMPLEX I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM- 682 018. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM- 682 031. R1 BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2011, ALONG WITH CRL.R.P. NOS.972/2011 & 973/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. Nos.971, 972 & 973 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August 2011 ORDER All these revisions are filed by a chitty company and its Managing Director, the accused proceeded in three cheque cases by its subscribers on dishonour of the cheques issued to them towards refund of the chitty subscriptions made in the company. After trial, the company and also its Managing Director, first and second accused respectively, were found guilty of the offence imputed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), and, accordingly, both of them were convicted. In the three complaint cases, the chitty company, on conviction, was sentenced to pay a fine of `5,000/- each, and the second accused, apart from being mulcted with fine, was directed to undergo substantive term of imprisonment as well. Appeals preferred by the petitioners (accused) were turned down by the learned Sessions Judge who confirmed the conviction and sentence without any modification. Feeling aggrieved, these revisions have been filed by the aforesaid accused. 2. Notice given, the respondents in the respective revisions, the complainants before the court below, have entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/accused submitted that he has no challenge Crl.R.P. Nos.971, 972 and 973/2011 2 against the conviction imposed, but only with respect to the sentence imposing substantive term of imprisonment awarded to the second accused, the Managing Director of the chitty company. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find, the conviction imposed against the revision petitioners/accused is founded on unimpeachable legal evidence. No further dilation over the propriety of conviction is necessary in the cases where no challenge is canvassed thereof. 4. So far as the sentence imposed, though there is some reason to hold that the Managing Director of the chitty company having issued cheques to the subscribers without sufficient fund in the account to honour them, that too in respect of chitty subscriptions made by them, could not be free from blame, warranting a sentence of imprisonment, considering the submissions made by the counsel and also looking into the totality of the facts and circumstances presented, I find, some leniency can be shown, reducing the substantive term of imprisonment to one day, till the rising of the court. So much so, the substantive term of imprisonment imposed against the second accused, Managing Director of the chitty company, in the respective cases, shall stand modified as reduced to imprisonment for one day, till the rising of Crl.R.P. Nos.971, 972 and 973/2011 3 the court. In all other respects, upholding the conviction passed against the accused in all the three cases, it is ordered that the sentence imposed shall remain in tact. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for two months time to pay the fine imposed and, thus, avoid the default terms of imprisonment. The cheques involved in the cases were issued, as seen from the judgments, in July 2008. So much so, there is no merit in seeking further extension of time to pay the fine. However, there will be a direction to the Magistrate concerned to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence for a period of six weeks from today. Whatever amount deposited towards the fine amount imposed shall be given credit to by the court below in the realisation of the fine. 6. The second petitioner shall appear before the Magistrate on 26-09-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court, in all three cases concurrently, and to report the payment of fine. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of fine, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence in the respective case taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge