IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRRP.No. 2692 of 2011 ( ) CRL.A.NO.771/2007 OF ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK COURT - 1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. C.C. NO.164/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -V, (SPECIAL COURT FOR MARK LIST CASES) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ......... REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED 1. G. MADHAVA KURUP, S/O.GOVINDA KURUP, CHOTHY, KALLUVARAMBU, VENKODE,VATTAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV.SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. U. KAMALASANAN, T.C.11/1117, CHARUKUZHY VEEDU, CHARACHIRA, KAWADIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. SEENA SRI.D.SAJEEV SRI.BABU POTHENCODE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2011 , ALONG WITH CRRP. 2693/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2692 & 2693 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 O R D E R These revisions are filed by the accused, common in two cases, as against his conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 {for short ‘the Act'} arising from two complaints by the same complainant-2nd respondent in these revisions. Sentence imposed against him in one case, C.C.No.164/05 is simple imprisonment for six months with direction to pay compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for 15 days. In the other case, C.C.No.165/05, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with direction to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for 15 days. Crl.R.P.No.2692 & 2693 of 2011 :: 2 :: 2. Notice issued in the revisions, the common 2nd respondent/complainant has entered appearance. 3. The revisions coming up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction, but only against the sentence, for seeking modification of the substantive term of imprisonment imposed, with a request to be made for grant of some more time for payment of the compensation. The counsel urging that the accused is facing financial difficulties requested for grant of six months' time for payment of the compensation. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has no objection in modifying the substantive term of imprisonment imposed, but, serious objections over the request for further time for payment of the Crl.R.P.No.2692 & 2693 of 2011 :: 3 :: compensation. However, the learned counsel, in fairness, submitted that she does not stand in the way of this court granting reasonable time for payment as deemed fit and proper. 4. Going through the judgments in both cases rendered by the magistrate and also the Sessions Judge, I find that no special circumstances have been made out in the cases justifying the harsh punishment of imprisonment of the petitioner/accused for the term fixed for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the drawer of an instrument, who is found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act for the reason of bouncing of that instrument for insufficiency of funds in his account, that alone, is not to be mulcted with a term of incarceration. I find, the ends of justice would be met by directing Crl.R.P.No.2692 & 2693 of 2011 :: 4 :: modification of the sentence, limiting the imprisonment awarded against the petitioner/accused as one till the rising of the court in both the cases, retaining the compensation fixed with the default term of imprisonment. So far as the request made for grant of time, I find, a short period, as indicated hereunder, can be provided to enable the petitioner/accused to avoid the default term of imprisonment. 5. Affirming the conviction, sentence imposed against the accused in both cases is modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation fixed with the default term of imprisonment in the respective case. Accused is directed to appear before the magistrate on 15.02.2012, to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court which he is allowed to undergo Crl.R.P.No.2692 & 2693 of 2011 :: 5 :: concurrently in both the cases, and, to report the payment of compensation. The magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence in the two cases till the date fixed as above for his appearance, to enable him to pay the compensation within such period. In default of his appearance and non-payment of the compensation, the magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.