IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3431 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.212/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.4227/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR P.M., PALACHAKUZHY HOUSE, PAKALOMATTOM P.O., KURAVILANGADU. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.PETER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. A.V. THOMAS, ANNADICAL HOUSE, KURUMMALLOOR KARA, ONAMTHURUTHU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8.8.2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No. 3431 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011. O R D E R This criminal revision is filed by the accused. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This revision is filed challenging the said conviction and sentence. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that there was no proper appreciation of evidence by the two courts below. The learned Magistrate accepted the evidence given by PW1 the complainant and Exts.P1 to P9. The cheque in question was for Rs.2,00,000/- lakhs. It is seen that the cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of funds. All the legal formalities were duly complied with. The amount covered by the cheque was not paid. 3. Though the accused raised so many contentions disputing the liability all those contentions were found against by the courts below. Crl.R.P No. 3431 OF 2003 2 The learned Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge scrutinised the evidence given by PW1 and the documents produced by PW1 in support of his claim and found that Ext.P1 was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. I find no reason to differ from the view taken by the two courts below. Since all the legal formalities were complied with, the conviction is only to be confirmed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the substantive sentence of imprisonment for three months may be avoided, Since there is a direction to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. I find that the sentence can be modified directing the accused to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to PW1 the complainant. 5. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of as stated below: The conviction is confirmed. While reducing the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court, the direction to pay the compensation stands confirmed. On failure to pay the compensation amount, the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment Crl.R.P No. 3431 OF 2003 3 for three months. The revision petitioner will appear before the learned Magistrate on 8.11.11 to receive the sentence and to pay/deposit the amount of compensation. When the amount is so deposited it shall be released to the defacto complainant. If any amount had already been deposited only the balance amount shall be deposited/paid. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE mns