IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 505 of 2000(A) CRA.89/1998 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.2450/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED MANIYAN ACHARI S/O AYYAPPANKUTTY ACHARI PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE PANAMUCK, NEDUPUZHA P.O. TRICHUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT 1. SEBY JOSEPH S/O C.V.JOSEPH, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE NEDUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY ADV. SMT.MINI JOHN PAREMALIL SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.505 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of January 2008 ORDER Petitioner was prosecuted by respondent No.1 for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. However, in appeal learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the order of conviction, modified and reduced the sentence. Petitioner was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for three days and to pay a sum of Rs.22,000/- as compensation and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for forty five days. It was further directed that the complainant shall be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/-, if the amount of compensation was realised. It is contended by the petitioner that the order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable. 2. The case of the complainant in brief was that the accused had issued Ext.P1 series cheques (2 in number) for Rs.9,000/- each in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. When Crl.R.P.No.505 OF 2000 :: 2 :: the two cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Though Ext.P3 statutory notice was issued demanding payment, the accused had failed to discharge the liability. It was therefore that respondent No.1/complainant had prosecuted the petitioner. 3. The complainant got himself examined as PW1 and his witness was examined as PW2. Exts.P1to P6 were also marked on his side. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. 4. Learned Magistrate on a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record found that the complainant had satisfactorily established his case. Petitioner was accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated above. The learned Sessions Judge on further evaluation of the evidence on record, concurred with the finding entered by the learned Magistrate. 5. Having carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence, I do not find any reason to disagree with the Crl.R.P.No.505 OF 2000 :: 3 :: concurrent findings entered by the courts below. It had come out in evidence that the two cheques bore the signature of the accused and that they had been dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in his account. It appears that in Ext.P5 reply notice, the accused had contended that the complainant had misused two blank signed cheques delivered by the accused to the complainant in connection with pledging of some gold ornaments. But the accused had not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of the above contention. The courts below, in my view, had rightly found that the petitioner/accused had discharged the burden cast on him. In any view of the matter, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the courts below. There is no merit in the revision petition. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay the amount of compensation as directed by the appellate court. She prays that the sentence may be modified and reduced and the petitioner may be given some reasonable time to pay off the amount. Crl.R.P.No.505 OF 2000 :: 4 :: 7. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that leniency can be shown in the matter of sentence. Therefore, while confirming the order of conviction, the sentence of three days' imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the appellate court is reduced. Petitioner shall suffer imprisonment for one day and shall pay the amount of compensation as directed by the appellate court. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on February 20, 2008 and deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.22,000/- as directed by the appellate court. On his appearance, the learned Magistrate shall ensure that petitioner undergoes imprisonment till the rising of the court. If the petitioner fails to appear before the court and pay the amount, the default sentence imposed by the appellate court shall be enforced by the trial court. Out of the amount of compensation, if deposited, the complainant shall be paid Rs.20,000/- as directed by the appellate court. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.R.P.No.505 OF 2000 :: 5 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.505 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 23rd Jan. 2008