IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2696 of 2011 -------------------------------------- CRA.386/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ST.179/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, KOLLAM. .......................................................................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. HARIKUMAR, PUNTHILATHU PARAKADAVU, SOORANAD NORTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SHIJI, W/O.HARIKUMAR, PUNTHILATHU PARAKADAVU, SOORANAD NORTH, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MAHI, S/O.SREEDHARAN, VIJAYA NIVAS, KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691004. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: STU S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2696 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November 2011 ORDER Revision petitioners, both of them, have been found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act) on a complaint filed by the second respondent. The trial magistrate, on conviction of the accused, sentenced the first accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of 60 days with direction to pay fine of `.60,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for 15 more days. The second accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. Fine amount, if realised, was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. In appeal, jointly filed by the accused, the learned sessions judge modified the sentence imposed against the first accused, reducing the term of imprisonment fixed to 7 days, but, enhanced the fine amount to `.70,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for two months. Sentence imposed against the second accused was affirmed without any modification. Feeling aggrieved, both the accused together have preferred this revision. Crl. R.P No.2696 OF 2011 2 2. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction, but, only against the sentence fixing a period of one week imprisonment as against the first petitioner/first accused. Counsel also made a request for grant of one month time to enable the first accused to pay the compensation and, thus avoid the default term of imprisonment. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel as aforesaid, I find, no notice to the complainant is called for, and it is dispensed with. 3. Perusing the judgments rendered by the learned magistrate and also the learned sessions Judge, I find that no special circumstance has been made out in the case for incarceration of the first petitioner/first accused in prison for a period of one week, for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Sentence imposed against him can be reduced and modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation with the default term of imprisonment. 4. Affirming the conviction against the petitioners/accused, sentence imposed against the first petitioner is modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay the Crl. R.P No.2696 OF 2011 3 fine of `.70,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for two months. Sentence imposed against the second accused is affirmed. Both petitioners/accused are directed to appear before the magistrate on 15-12-2011 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and the first petitioner to report the payment of the fine amount. In default of appearance and nonpayment of the fine by the 1st petitioner, the magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge