IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1195 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRA.619/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD CC.6/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,OTTAPALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/1ST ACUSED -------------------------------------------------- VARSHITHA KURIES AND LOANS, OTTAPALAM BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, E. RAVEENDRANATHAN, ERUPATHODIYIL HOUSE, PALAPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.M. RAFEEK, S/O. MOIDEEN HAJI, AGED 34 YEARS, KAIYALAKKAL HOUSE, AMBALAPARA, OTTAPALAM TALUK - 679 101. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K. RAMESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl. R.P No.1195 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October 2011 ORDER Revision is by the 1st accused, a financial concern, challenging its conviction with another, 2nd accused, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently, by the two inferior courts. Sentence imposed, as modified by the learned Sessions Judge, is fine of `.60,000/- each with default term of simple imprisonment for one month each, as against the accused involved in the case. The 1st accused, the financial concern, represented by its Managing Director has alone preferred this revision. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent/complainant has entered appearance. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction and sentence, but, only a request to be made for granting some more time to pay the fine amount. However, going through the judgments, it is seen, the revision petitioner/1st accused in the case is a financial concern, as against which a prison term had been imposed as part of the punishment. Though it is represented by the Managing Director, in the absence of impleadment of the Managing Director as an accused in the case and conviction against him, there is no merit in imposing a default term of imprisonment. If fine amount is not realised for any reason, Crl.R.P. No.1195 OF 2011 2 whatsoever, from the 1st accused concern, then, naturally, proceedings have to be initiated as provided under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So, that part of the sentence directing imprisonment for one month in respect of 1st accused cannot be sustained. Subject to the modification of the sentence as indicated above, conviction of the 1st accused has to be confirmed. Some more time can be granted to the 1st accused as requested by the counsel to effect the payment. 3. Affirming the conviction of the 1st accused, sentence against that concern is limited to fine of `.60,000/- and that alone. In the event of nonpayment of the fine within two months by the 1st accused, appropriate steps shall be taken for realisation of the fine as provided under law. Revision is disposed of as indicated above. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge