IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1817 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.700/2007 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ST.38/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :- ------------------------------------------------------------------- R.RADHAKRISHNAN, RAGHU VILASOM, MAYYANADU P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BABURAJ, S/O.KUMARAN, RAJ BHAVAN, PATTETHANAM, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1817 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June 2010 O R D E R Challenging the judgment dated 12.11.2007 in S.T.No.38/2007 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- IV, Kollam and the judgment dated 20.1.2010 of the court of IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kollam in Crl.A.No.700/2007, the accused in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act, preferred this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant on 20.12.2003 and towards the discharge of the said amount, Ext.P1 cheque dated 20.1.2004 was issued which when presented for encashment dishonoured and no amount was paid in spite of formal notice. Thus, the revision petitioner/accused has convicted the offence. Based upon Crl.R.P.No.1817 of 2010 : 2 : the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 documents and after considering the evidence of defence including the deposition of DW1 and DW2, the trial court as well as the lower appellate court has found that the complainant has established his case against the accused. The above concurrent findings of the court below is based upon the evidence and the facts proved during the trial of the case. I find no reason to interfere with such concurrent finding of the court below and therefore the conviction imposed against the revision petitioner is liable to be confirmed. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, with slight modification of the amount of compensation, the said prayer can be allowed. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the trial court on 17th Crl.R.P.No.1817 of 2010 : 3 : September, 2010 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and he is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C. and on failure to pay the compensation, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. In case of failure on the part of the revision petitioner/accused to appear before the trial court as directed above and making the deposit of compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner/accused and to execute the sentence. This revision petition is disposed of as above. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt