IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 415 of 2003(C) ------------------------------ CRA.275/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.87/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- P.M. JOSEPH, PULICKAPRAVIL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. PUZHPAM VARGHESE, PROPRIETRESS, P.V.S. AUTOMOBILES, AYARKUNNAM, REPRESENTED BY DULY APPOINTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.T. MATHAI, MURINGAYIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM KARA, DO. VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECCUTOR SMT. SUSMANGALA P.N. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.R.P. NO. 415 OF 2003 ======================= Dated this the 11th February 2011 ORDER This revision petition is filed by the accused against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence. This revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that he is not challenging the conviction entered into CRRP 415/2003 -2- by the courts below against him. He also prays that to avoid substantial sentence, the sentence may be modified by directing the petitioner to pay the amount of compensation under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. This prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. The cheque is dated 16/4/1997 for Rs.20,000/-. More than 13 years is already elapsed after the issuance of the cheque. In the circumstances, I find that the substantial sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the courts below can be avoided and direction can be given to the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation, which according to me is reasonable in a case like this. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rs.10,000/- is already deposited by the petitioner before the lower court as per order of this Court dated 11/2/2003 in Crl.M.A.No.1445 of 2003 which is still in deposit before the trial court. I am inclined to give three months time to the revision petitioner either to pay the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- or to deposit the same before the trial court within a period of three months, i.e. on or before 12/5/2011 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. CRRP 415/2003 -3- 5. In the result, a) this revision petition is allowed in part. b)The order of conviction entered into against the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed and the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of the court. c)The amount of compensation under Section 357(3) is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-- . d)The revision petitioner is directed to deposit/pay the balance amount of Rs.15,000/-on or before 12/5/2011 in case of deposit of Rs.10,000/- already made by the revision petitioner as represented by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner which is still in deposit and in case of default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. e))The first respondent is permitted to withdraw Rs.10,000/- which is already deposited by the revision petitioner on filing proper application. If the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- is deposited by the revision petitioner on or before 12/5/2011 to avoid the default sentence, the complainant/first CRRP 415/2003 -4- respondent can withdraw the entire amount on filing proper application. g)The revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 13/5/2011 for execution of the sentence. Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE CRRP 415/2003 -5-