IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 601 of 2003() ----------------------------- CRL.APPEAL NO.93/1994 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.515/1993 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- SEBASTIN V.MATHEW, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PACHA, CHEKKIDIKKADU EDATHUA, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. GEORGE VARKEY, SANKARAMANGALAM FINANCIERS, THIRUVALLA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW FOR R1 SMT.K.MEERA FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR -R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.2153/2003 IN CRL.R.P.NO.601/2003 DISMISSED 16.12.2009 Sd/-(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P. NO. 601 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioner was the accused in C.C. No.515 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thiruvalla and he was the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 93 of 1994 on the file of the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta. He was indicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in C.C. No.515 of 1993. The said case originated from the complaint filed by the first respondent herein. As per the complaint, the revision petitioner/accused issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 31.5.1993 drawn in favour of the Union Bank of India in discharge of a liability to the tune of Rs.20,000/- due to the first respondent herein/ complainant. The said cheque when presented for collection was dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds in the account of the revision petitioner. Thereupon, the first respondent/complainant issued the statutorily prescribed notice. Admittedly, the revision petitioner had failed to pay back the amount within the statutorily prescribed period. The complaint was filed in the CRL.R.P. NO.601/2003 2 said circumstances. The complainant was examined as PW.2 and one T.K. Chandramohanan was examined as PW.1. Exts.P1 to P8 were produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There was no evidence, either oral or documentary, on the side of the accused. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the side of the complainant, the trial court found that nothing was brought out in the cross-examination of PW.2 to discredit him and that the evidence of PW.1 corroborates with the evidence of PW2, the complainant. Therefore, the case of the first respondent herein that the cheque was issued in discharge of his liability was upheld. It was also found that all the ingredients to attract an offence under Section 138 of the Act have been satisfied. Therefore, the revision petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of compensation, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. Challenging the judgment in C.C. No.515 of 1994, the revision petitioner unsuccessfully attempted an appeal as Crl. appeal No.93 of 1994. As per the judgment dated 9.10.2002, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence, this revision. CRL.R.P. NO.601/2003 3 2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court can be exercised only if the orders impugned are perverse or illegal or they suffer from procedural irregularities and illegalities or requires correction of a serious nature. The revision petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction. After going through the judgments impugned, I cannot find any reason for interfering with the impugned judgments. In fact, evidently, all the ingredients to attract the provision under Section 138 of the Act have been satisfied. Therefore, it cannot be held that the judgments impugned suffer from any illegality warranting interference with the conviction entered against the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act is confirmed. 3. With respect to the question as to whether the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner/accused is excessive or disproportionate, I think the said issue requires consideration. The transaction in question was in the year 1993. The revision petitioner is now aged more than 50 years. Considering all the above aspects, I think, interest of justice could be met by reducing the sentence imposed on him by imposing a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court. Ordered accordingly. With respect to the compensation payable to the complainant under Section 357 CRL.R.P. NO.601/2003 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. The revision petitioner is granted two moths' time to pay the said amount of Rs.25,000/-. If any amount has already been deposited, the revision petitioner need pay only the balance amount of compensation. The entire amount of fine, if remitted by the revision petitioner, shall be released to the first respondent/complainant immediately. His bail bonds are cancelled. The revision petitioner/accused shall appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thiruvalla on 17.2.2010 to suffer the punishment of imprisonment. The Crl. Revision Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ CRL.R.P. NO.601/2003 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. CRL.R.P. NO. 601/2003 O R D E R 16th December, 2009 CRL.R.P. NO.601/2003 6