IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 469 of 2003(B) ------------------------------ CRA.420/2001 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.103/1999 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. M/S. S.S.INDUSTRIES AND ENTERPRISES, SUCRA MANSION, 3RD FLOOR, 158 ARCOT ROAD, CHENNAI- 600 026. 2. A.R.SANTHANAKRISHNAN, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. S.S.INDUSTRIES AND ENTERPRISES, SUCRA MANSION 3RD FLOOR, 158 ARCOT ROAD, CHENNAI-600 026 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS --------------------------------------- 1. M/S. OIL PALM INDIA LTD., P.B.NO. 1795, XIII-354, OLD STAR THEATER ROAD, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, (HRD), K.N.RAVEENDRAN 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. BINDU SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE & SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON 24.3.2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 469 of 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.103 of 1999 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam. The said complaint was filed alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. The case of the complainant is that the first accused Company purchased 20,000 oil palm sprout from the complainant and towards the cost of the same, issued a cheque dt.21.12.1998. The cheque was presented by the complainant through their accounts in the State Bank of Travancore, Kottayam branch, but was bounced for insufficiency of funds. The complainant issued a lawyer notice, intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding payment. But the company has not discharged the liability. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are responsible officers Crl.R.P.No. 469 of 2003 2 of the accused company. Pursuant to the summons, accused 1 and 2 appeared before the court. Accused 3 and 4 absconded and the case against them was split up. When particulars of the offence were read over to the accused, they pleaded not guilty. 3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P11 were marked. The second accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who denied the allegations raised. From the defence side, a witness list was filed. Though steps were taken, nobody could be examined. 4. The learned C.J.M., Kottayam, on considering the evidence, found accused 1 and 2 guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and they were convicted and sentenced. The second accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The first accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,20,000/-, which will be recovered from the assets of the company and on recovery, Rs.2,00,000/- will be paid to the complainant as compensation. The case against accused 3 and 4 was refiled. Crl.R.P.No. 469 of 2003 3 5. Against that conviction and sentence, accused 1 and 2 filed Crl.A.No. 420 of 2001 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam, which was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence. Against that judgment accused 1 and 2 filed this Revision Petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not challenging the conviction of accused 1 and 2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that the only prayer of the petitioners is to show leniency in awarding the sentence. In the decision reported in George v. Kamarudeen (2007 (1) KLT 759), it was held that a substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court would be sufficient in the case of offence under Section 138 of the Act to meet the ends of justice, particularly in view of the fact that adequate compensation has been awarded. In view of the Crl.R.P.No. 469 of 2003 4 principle laid down in the above decision, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met by sentencing the second accused to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and by confirming the sentence to pay fine of Rs.2,20,000/- by the first accused. 8. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is allowed in part. The conviction of accused 1 and 2 in C.C. 103 of 1999 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is confirmed. The sentence of the second accused to undergo S.I. for a period of three months is reduced and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court. The sentence to pay a fine of Rs.2,20,000/- by the first accused is confirmed. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that five months' time may be granted to the revision petitioners to pay the fine. In the facts and circumstances of the case, five months' time is granted to the revision petitioners to pay the fine. Crl.R.P.No. 469 of 2003 5 The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam, is directed to execute the modified sentence. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm