IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1886 of 2011() -------------------------------------------- CRA.NO. 393/2008 of IST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.560/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MANNARKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED. -------------------------------------------------------------------- SAIDALAVI, S/O.HASSAN, AGED 38 YEARS, PIRIYARIYIL HOUSE, KARIMBA POST,MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.V.VARGHESE, S/O.KORAVARKKI, AGED 56 YEARS, VAZHUTHALAKKUNNEL HOUSE, KARIMBA POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 597. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 031 R1 BY ADV. SRI.U.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1886 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of August 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the NI Act), concurrently, by the two inferior courts. The learned Magistrate, on his conviction, has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, but, in appeal, that sentence was modified by the learned Sessions Judge to one of fine of `.51,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for one month. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. Notice given, 1st respondent has entered appearance. When the revision came up for consideration, the counsel on both sides submitted that the disputes involved over the cheque, which on its dishonour had given raise to the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of the accused, have been amicably settled by the parties with the accused paying the cheque amount to the complainant. Though nothing on record has been placed with respect to the settlement effected by the parties, nor any petition moved for composition of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, I find no reason to doubt the submissions made on behalf of the complainant by his counsel that he has no grievance Crl.R.P No.1886 OF 2011 2 over the cheque issued by the accused, which was dishonoured on its presentation. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused urged for modification of the sentence in view of the settlement effected by the parties, submitting that as under the fine amount of `.51,000/- imposed, in modification of the sentence awarded by the learned Magistrate, by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, a sum of `.50,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. Since whatever amount due had already been paid to the complainant, sentence may be limited to fine of `.1,000/-, is the submission of the learned counsel for the accused. In the given facts of the case, I find, the request made by the counsel as aforesaid is justifiable. Confirming the conviction of the accused, the sentence imposed against him is modified, directing him to pay a fine of `1,000/- with default term of imprisonment for 15 days. Revision is disposed of as indicated above. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge