IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1787 of 2003() ------------------------------ ST.2166/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM CRA.111/1999 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT NO.1,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- SUKUMARAN, S/O.AREEKKARA GOVINDAN, CHITTANDA VILLAGE, THRIKKANDA, PATHIYARAM DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------- 1. SATHEESH, S/O.MULLATH ACHUTHAN ANJOORE VILLAGE, CHERUVATHANI DESOM THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.C.N.RADHAKRISHNAN SMT.P.K.NANDINI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P.No.1787 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs.41,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was also ordered to give Rs.40,000/- out of the fine amount to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The conviction was confirmed by the appellate court and the sentence was modified by directing the appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no representation for the 1st respondent/complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor is also heard. 3. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the revision Crl.R.P.No.1787/03 2 petitioner is not challenging the concurrent finding of conviction entered against him by the courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel also submitted that Rs.20,000/-, that is half of the cheque amount has been deposited already by the revision petitioner before the trial court as ordered by this Court on 25/7/2003 while suspending the sentence as per order in Crl.M.A.No.7662/2003. The revision petitioner is ready to deposit the balance amount within a period of three months. It is also prayed to modify the sentence of imprisonment for one month to imprisonment till rising of court. 4. The disputed cheque in this case is for Rs.40,000/- dated 15/12/1995. A concurrent finding of guilty and conviction is there against the revision petitioner by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court. About 15 years is already elapsed after the issuance of the disputed cheque. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. Therefore the verdict of guilty and conviction do not warrant any interference and the same is confirmed. Only the cheque amount of Rs.40,000/- has Crl.R.P.No.1787/03 3 been ordered as compensation by the courts below. Considering the lapse of 15 years after the issuance of cheque, I find that the compensation amount ordered by the courts below at Rs.40,000/- should be enhanced to Rs.45,000/-. The revision petitioner can be granted three months time to deposit the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- if Rs.20,000/- is already deposited by the revision petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 5. In the result, a) This revision petition is allowed in part. b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are confirmed. (c) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay/deposit the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation and in default to undergo Crl.R.P.No.1787/03 4 simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The amount in deposit, if any, and the balance amount if deposited shall be released to the complainant on proper application. The petitioner shall have time till 16/6/2011 to pay/deposit the balance amount of compensation of Rs.25,000/- and thus avoid the default sentence. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 17/06/2011 for execution of the sentence. (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.R.P.No.1787/03 5 M.C.HARI RANI, J Crl.R.P.No.1787 of 2003 ORDER 16th day of March 2003 Crl.R.P.No.1787/03 6 Crl.R.P.No.1787/03 7