IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3264 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRA. 312/2008 OF SESIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC. 327/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KASARAGOD ......... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- T.BHARATHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, PALLANJI HOUSE, P.O.PANDY, KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------- 1. K.ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.E.KUNHAMBU NAIR, THEERTHANKARA HOUSE, P.O.VATTAMTHATTA, KASARGODE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.Gopinathan, J. ========================================== Crl.R.P.3264 of 2009 ========================================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009. ORDER 1.The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.327 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II (Additional Munsiff), Kasargode. The first respondent prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, after due trial, arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for one month more. The amount, if realised, was ordered to be given to the complainant as compensation. In appeal, the CRRP3264/09 -:2:- Sessions Judge, Kasargode confirmed the conviction. But modified the sentence of simple imprisonment to ten days. The direction to pay compensation and default sentence were also confirmed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence, as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2.Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment impugned, I find that the first respondent, who was examined as P.W.1, supported by Exts.P1 to P5, had succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of the said liability, Ext.P1 cheque dated 12.12.2007 was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection, it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, as evidenced by Ext.P2 dated CRRP3264/09 -:3:- 14.12.2007. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 dated 10.1.2008, was caused demanding discharge of the liability and it was acknowledged by the revision petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P5, the liability was not discharged. 3.The appellate court has now awarded substantive sentence of ten days and default sentence of one month for non-payment of compensation amounting to Rs.1,90,000/-. The substantive sentence as well as default sentence awarded by the appellate court is too low. Adding to that, an ordinary money transaction pursuaded the revision petitioner to face the prosecution. I find that the sentence requires a modification and that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court with compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- would meet the ends of justice. CRRP3264/09 -:4:- In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction is confirmed and the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of the court and compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-. In default of payment of compensation, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioner is granted six months' time to pay compensation, provided, he executes a bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The trial court shall see the execution of sentence and report compliance. sl. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge.