IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2169 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRA.603/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOLLAM CC.2073/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM ............................................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------- PLASSIDAS SIMON @ PLASSIDOR SIMON, HOSE BHAVAN, NORTH MYLAKKADU, KANNANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.C.SINOY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLIANANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MOHANDAS UNNITHAN, S/O.VASU PILLAI, VINEETH ALAYAM, NORTH MYLAKKAD, KANNANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUOR MR. M.R. VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2169 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused/revision petitioner, towards the discharge of a debt due to the complainant, issued a cheque dated 07.07.2003 for a sum of Rs.15,000/-, which when presented for encashment dishonoured, as there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and the cheque amount was not repaid in spite of a formal demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. With the same allegation, the complainant approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted C.C.No.2073/2003. During the trial of the case, PW1, the complainant himself, was examined from the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. No evidence either Crl. R.P.No.2169 of 2010 2 oral or documentary adduced from the side of the defence. On the basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner/accused for the purpose of discharging his debt due to the complainant. Thus accordingly the court found that, the complainant has established the case against the accused/revision petitioner and consequently found that the accused is guilty and thus convicted him u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the accused/revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the complainant u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the default sentence is fixed as one month simple imprisonment. 3. Though an appeal was preferred by the revision petitioner/accused by judgment dated 12.03.2010 in Crl.Appeal.No.603 of 2006, the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge(Adhoc)-1, Kollam allowed the appeal only in part. Thus while confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, certain modification is made with respect to the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court. Accordingly, revision petitioner is sentenced to Crl. R.P.No.2169 of 2010 3 undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and it is also ordered that in default of paying the fine amount the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It is also ordered that on receipt of the fine amount a sum of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to the complainant u/s.357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts below. 5. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction ordered by the courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, some breathing time may be granted to deposit the fine amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered and three months time can be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the fine amount and also to receive the sentence. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by Crl. R.P.No.2169 of 2010 4 the courts below. Thus while confirming the sentence of imprisonment and the sentence of fine and default sentence, the petitioner is granted 3 months time from today to receive the sentence and to pay the fine amount as directed by the appellate court. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 28.10.2010. In case any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in depositing the fine amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the fine amount. If any warrant is pending against the revision petitioner the execution of the same shall be deferred till 28.10.2010. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. mns