IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 379 of 2001() ----------------------------- ST.148/1991 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CRA.189/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER:/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- P. NEELAMBARAN, KALIKATTUVELI HOUSE, PUNNAPRA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. AJITH KUMAR, KARUKAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, S.N.PURAM.P.O. CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 379 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008. ORDER Petitioner who has been concurrently found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced thereunder has preferred this Revision Petition. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and having perused the oral and documentary evidence on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction. 3. There is yet another reason to take the above view. It is on record that petitioner was initially found guilty under Section 138 of the Act and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. The said order was never challenged by the petitioner/accused, though the complainant had unsuccessfully tried to challenge the adequacy of sentence before the Sessions Court in a Revision Petition. 4. But this Court in Crl.R.C.52/1993 had set aside the order of sentence while confirming the conviction and remitted the case back to the trial court with a direction to pass an appropriate fresh order on sentence. 5. It is the admitted position that the trial court had thereafter considered the matter and imposed a sentence of imprisonment on the petitioner for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in Crl.RP.379/01 : 2 : default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge modified and reduced the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for 3 months, while sustaining order with regard to fine. 6. Learned counsel while assailing the above order of conviction and sentence primarily contends that the sentence is too harsh. It is pointed out by him that the complainant had already instituted a civil suit for recovery of the cheque amount. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that interference is warranted in the matter of sentence. 7. Therefore while confirming the order of conviction, the sentence is modified. Petitioner shall suffer imprisonment for one day and pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. 8. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on January 30, 2008 and remit the above sum of Rs.75,000/-. On appearance of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall ensure that petitioner suffers the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court. On failure of the petitioner to remit the above sum of Rs.75,000/-, petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The amount, if deposited, shall be released to the complainant. Crl.R.P. is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. an. A.K. Basheer, J. Crl.RP.379 of 2001. ORDER 02/01/2008