IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 376 of 2005 ----------------------------- CRA.26/1999 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC),FAST TRACK COURT-I PATHANAMTHITTA CC.401/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- V.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAMPOOTHIRI, RADHAKRISHNA BHAVAN, PERINGARA P.O., THIRUVALLA, NOW RESIDING AT VERILATHU HOUSE, VALANJAVATTOM PULIKEEZHU, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. GEORGE VARKEY, SANKARAMANGALAM FINANCERS, THIRUVALLA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.BOBY MATHEW FOR R1 SMT.K.MEERA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J ==== ============== Crl.R.P.No. 376 of 2005 ===================== Dated this the 27th day of June 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 as per judgment dated 18/12/1998 in C.C.No.401/1996 convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months . The appeal was partly allowed by the appellate court and the conviction was sustained and the sentence was modified to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months with a direction that the compensation if realised shall be disbursed to the complainant in full vide judgment dated 25/11/2004 in Crl.Appeal No.26/1999. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. CRRP 376/2005 2 3. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the revision 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. It is also submitted that the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by the lower appellate court is highly excessive and prayed to reduce that amount. According to the learned counsel, the cheque amount was Rs.3,00,000/- and the accused is ready to pay that amount as compensation. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also prays three months' time for payment of the amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 4. A concurrent finding of guilty and conviction is there against the revision petitioner by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. 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. The disputed cheque is dated 29/11/1995. Considering the elapse of more than 15 years, the compensation amount is fixed at Rs.3,10,000/-. The revision petitioner can be CRRP 376/2005 3 granted three months' time to pay/deposit the amount of Rs.3,10,000/- less the amount if any already deposited by the revision petitioner and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The sentence of imprisonment till rising of court ordered by the appellate court is confirmed. 5. In the result, a) This revision petition is allowed in part. b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are confirmed and the sentence to undergo imprisonment till rising of court as ordered by the appellate court is also confirmed. (c) The revision petitioner/accused is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C either to pay directly or to deposit the total amount of Rs.3,10,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ten thousand only) within three months, less the amount if any already deposited as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. In case of direct payment to the complainant, the revision petitioner/accused shall file a memo to that effect before the trial court. The amount in deposit, if any, and the balance amount if CRRP 376/2005 4 deposited shall be released to the complainant on proper application. The revision petitioner shall have time till 27/9/2011 to pay/deposit the amount of compensation and thus avoid the default sentence. The revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 28/9/2011 for execution of the sentence. Sd/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE ks TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE CRRP 376/2005 5 CRRP 376/2005 6 CRRP 376/2005 7 M.C.HARI RANI, J Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001 ORDER 17th DAY OF JUNE 2001 CRRP 376/2005 8 CRRP 376/2005 9