IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 182 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.449/1998 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1021/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCISED: --------------------- K.K.KUNJUMUHAMMED, KARELIL HOUSE, MUDICAL, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------- 1. M.D.GEORGE, MANKOZHAYIL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, THANKALAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.182 of 2000 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008. ORDER Heard the counsel on both sides. 2. The courts below concurrently found that the cheque issued by the revision petitioner in favour of the first respondent for the discharge of the debt was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and that in spite of dishonour intimation and demand, the revision petitioner did not pay the amount. Learned Magistrate sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and payment of fine. The appellate court, obviously because the fine imposed was beyond the permissible limit under Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, confirmed the substantive sentence awarded to the revision petitioner but, modified the fine as Rs.5,000/-. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that during the course of the proceedings in the trial court, Rs.10,000/- was paid to the first respondent and later as per the order of this Court Rs.5,000/- was deposited in the trial court. Learned counsel submitted that leniency may be shown in the matter of sentence in view of the above payment and deposit. He sought four months' time to deposit the remaining portion of the cheque amount by way of compensation. Crl.R.P.No.182/2000 2 3. That, Ext.P1, the cheque contained the signature of the revision petitioner and he gave the same to the first respondent for the discharge of a debt though according to him, to the tune of Rs.32,000/- is admitted by the revision petitioner. The amount covered by Ext.P1 is Rs.58,000/-. The revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence to show that he had borrowed only Rs.32,000/- or that he had given only a signed blank cheque. Courts below therefore, were justified in accepting and acting upon the testimony of the first respondent as PW1. There is little reason to interfere. 4. So far as the sentence is concerned, the judgment of the trial court states that Rs.10,000/- was paid by the revision petitioner to the first respondent during the course of trial. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that another Rs.5,000/- was deposited in the trial court as per the direction of this Court, counsel for the first respondent was not able to confirm that. 5. Considering the nature of the offence and the object of the legislation, I am inclined to think that simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and direction to pay compensation will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Resultantly, this Revision Petition is allowed in part in the following lines:- Crl.R.P.No.182/2000 3 (1) The substantive sentence awarded to the revision petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. (2) The revision petitioner is directed to deposit in the trial court for payment to the first respondent as compensation Rs.48,000/-(Rupees Fortyeight thousand only) within four months from this day failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. (3) In case any amount is deposited by the revision petitioner in the trial court as per the order of this Court, that amount will be adjusted in the sum of Rs.48,000/- stated above. (4) The revision petitioner shall surrender in the trial court on 27.1.2009 to receive the sentence. Bail bond is cancelled. Crl.M.P.No.1046 of 2000 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.182/2000 4 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.182 of 2000 ORDER 22nd September, 2008.