IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 923 of 2005() ----------------------------- CRA.179/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.750/1998 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,ADIMALI .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT-ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- M.K.GOPI, AGED 51, S/O.KUNJU, MALAYAMKUNNEL HOUSE, CHATTUPARA KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BABU.P.KURIAKOSE, AGED 47, S/O.KURIAKOSE, PALLATHUKUDY VEEDU, ADIMALY KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB, SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.923 of 2005 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 Order This revision is filed by the accused who suffered a conviction concurrently by the two courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. In appeal, the sentence was modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- while sustaining the order for payment of compensation passed by the learned Magistrate. This revision is directed against the said conviction and sentence. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the courts below have not appreciated the evidence properly and as such the conviction is unsustainable. Both the courts have analysed the evidence in the correct perspective and found that the cheque in question for Rs.60,000/- was issued by the accused in discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. I find no reason to upset that finding. All the statutory requirements were duly complied with. Hence, the conviction is only to be confirmed. However, the sentence has to be modified to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.60,000/- Crl.R.P.923/05 2 as compensation. The direction to pay Rs.5000/- as fine will stand set aside. 3. In the result, this revision is disposed of as stated below: The conviction is confirmed. The accused/revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and shall deposit Rs.60,000/- as compensation and in default, he will undergo simple imprisonment for one month. If the complainant and the accused appear in court on the same day, and if the complainant certifies the receipt of the compensation (certified by his counsel also), that can be reckoned as the payment of compensation as ordered by this court. The accused/revision petitioner is given two months time from today to pay/deposit the amount. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.R.P.923/05 3 Crl.R.P.923/05 4