IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 805 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.639/2006 of ADDL. DIST & SESSIONS COURTS, FAST TRACK (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.744/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- JACOB THOMAS @ REJI, S/O. THOMAS, CHETTIYARETHU MALAYIL, KODUKULANJI KARODU, VENMONY VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. RAJENDRA PRASAD, SANTHOSH BHAVANAM, KOZHUVALLOOR P.O., CHENGANNUR TALUK, PIN-689 521. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.IYPE JOSEPH FOR R1 R2 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No.805 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 24th Day of March, 2011 ORDER The challenge in this Crl.R.P is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, the learned counsel submitted that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and exorbitant. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that since the petitioner is kidney patient, lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence and breathing time may be granted to pay the compensation amount. In the light of the above submission, I am of the view that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration CRRP6 805/11 2 and breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner. 3. In the result, this Crl.R.P is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 138 of the N.I.Act recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and approved by the appellate court is modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment, i.e. till the rising of the court. While confirming the direction to pay compensation, and the default sentence, the petitioner is granted 45 days time to pay the compensation and it is made clear that the default sentence fixed by the appellate court will be attracted only in case of default from the part of the petitioner in paying the compensation amount within 45 days from today. It is made clear that the revision petitioner is free to make the payment of compensation either directly to the complainant or by remitting the same CRRP6 805/11 3 in the trial court whichever, subject to the satisfaction to the learned Magistrate. Accordingly the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 9 th May, 2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount on the date of appearance. If there is any default on the part of the petitioner in appearing before the trial court as directed above, the trial court is free to take coercive steps against the revision petitioner to secure his presence and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the amount. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 9.5.2011. This Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/- CRRP6 805/11 4 kvm/-