IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1895 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.96/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.1323/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT:ACCUSED -------------------------------------- BABU.K., S/O.K.C.THOMAS, KIZHAKKE VEETTIL, MYLAPRA MURI, MYLAPRA P.O. (PROPRIETOR OF ST.JUDE TYRES, NEAR KUMBAZHA BRIDGE, KUMBAZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., NO.Q-390, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VALSALA DEVI.K.R. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.VENUGOPAL .M.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1895 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July 2010 O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 2. The case of the complainant, a co-operative bank, is that the revision petitioner availed a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and towards the discharge of the outstanding liability, the accused issued a cheque dated 4.5.2006 for an amount of Rs.85,000/-, which when presented for encashment dishonoured for the reason that there is no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the revision petitioner/accused and according to the complainant though a formal notice was sent demanding the accused to pay the Crl.R.P.No.1895 of 2010 : 2 : amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, the same was not paid and hence the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. With the said allegation the complainant approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta and instituted S.T.No.1323/2006. During the course of the trial, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked from the side of the complainant. On conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.85,000/- as fine and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. It is also ordered that on realization of the fine amount, the same shall be given to the complainant under Sec.357(1) of Cr.P.C. Challenging the above order of conviction and sentence though an appeal was filed, by judgment dated 30.1.2010 in Crl.A.No.96/2008, the lower appellate court allowed the appeal only in part confirming the conviction but the Crl.R.P.No.1895 of 2010 : 3 : sentence was modified. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court reduced till the rising of the court and the lower appellate court converted the fine amount into compensation under Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the default sentence is fixed as simple imprisonment for 3 months. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. According to me, the said submission can be considered favourably. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction recorded by the courts below against the revision petitioner under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act and while confirming the sentence of imprisonment as modified and ordered by the lower appellate court and also confirming the order for compensation and the default Crl.R.P.No.1895 of 2010 : 4 : sentence, the revision petitioner is directed to make the payment within 3 months from today. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 2nd September, 2010 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount as directed by this court. In case any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in making the deposit of compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and direction for compensation awarded against the revision petitioner. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt