IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4195 of 2008() ------- ------------------------------ CRA.150/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.48/2003 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------- K.M.MATHEW, KUZHUVAMANNIL HOUSE, KURAVANKUZHI, PULLADU, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: / COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.V.SHAJI, MEMANA HOUSE, PULLADU, KOIPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM FOR R1 SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 4196 OF 2008 CRRP NO. 4197 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN.J ------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NOS. 4195 OF 2008, 4196 OF 2008 AND 4197 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The accused in ST No.48/2003, 50/2003 and 49/2003 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta is the revision petitioner. The first respondent in all the cases prosecuted the revision petitioner in three cases alleging the offence u/S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In ST No.48/2003 it was contended that the revision petitioner in discharge of a liability of Rs.1.00.000/- issued a cheque which was marked as Ext.P2 dated 24.12.2002 drawn on SBT Nellimala Branch and that when sent for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and that though notice demanding discharge was accepted, the liability was not discharged. In ST No.49/2003 it was contended that in discharge of a liability of Rs.3,00,000/-, Ext.P2 cheque marked in that case dated 30.12.02 drawn on SBI Kumbanadu Branch was issued and that when sent for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. In ST No.50/2003 it was contended that in discharge of a liability of Rs.1,65,000/- Ext.P2 cheque marked in that case dated 20.12.2003 drawn on SBI Kumbanadu Branch was Crl.R.P.NOS. 4195 OF 2008, 4196 OF 2008 AND 4197 OF 2008 2 issued and that when sent for collection it was returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and that despite the notice demanding discharge, the liability was discharged. All the complaints were filed on 28.2.2003. Since the revision petitioner pleaded not guilty, he was sent for trial. After trial the revision petitioner was found guilty in all the cases and was sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay the cheque amount as compensation u/S.357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the revision petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.148/2007, 149/2007 and 150/2007 before the Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta. The learned Sessions Judge, by a common judgment dated 26.9.2008, confirmed the conviction but the sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court with compensation as ordered by the trial court. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal these revision petitions were filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were so many transactions with the first respondent and he wanted Crl.R.P.NOS. 4195 OF 2008, 4196 OF 2008 AND 4197 OF 2008 3 continue the relationship and in the circumstance and he is prepared to pay off the cheque amount and sought 6 months time to discharge the same. The learned counsel also sought for leniency in sentence. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted for granting 4 months time to discharge the liability. 4. Having gone through the judgment under revision, I find that the courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and there is little reason to interfere with the conviction. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to have the sentence modified and that the sentence of fine equal to the cheque amount would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petitions are allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence in ST No.48/2003 is reduced to a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for 3 months. In ST No.49/2003, the sentence is reduced to a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- with a default sentence of Simple Imprisonment for four months. In ST No.50/2003, the sentence is reduced to a fine of Rs.1,65,000/-. In default of payment of fine the revision petitioner shall undergo Simple Crl.R.P.NOS. 4195 OF 2008, 4196 OF 2008 AND 4197 OF 2008 4 Imprisonment for 3 months. The revision petitioner is granted 5 months time to remit the fine. In the event the fine is remitted, the same shall be given to the first respondent as compensation u/S.357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Till then the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE. pm