IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 369 of 2004(A) ------------------------------------------------- CRA.374/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM CC.160/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: K.K.MANOJ, S/O. KUMARAN, KADAYATHU HOUSE, VEMBILLY, KUMARAPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SRI.JOHN VIPIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA. 2. M.P.JOLLY, MELETHU HOUSE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM, AIKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.369 of 2004 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the accused in C.C.No.160/2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kolencherry, who was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, filed this revision challenging the conviction and the modified sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl.A.No. 374/2003. Second respondent is the complainant. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and second respondent were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence and concurrent findings of fact, petitioner is not challenging the conviction and he be granted time to pay the compensation and the amount he has already deposited, as directed by this court, be adjusted towards the compensation. CRRP 369/04 2 4. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that Exhibit P1 cheque is dated 14.9.1999 and petitioner had protracted the case and in such circumstances, the revision is to be dismissed or the sentence is to be enhanced. 5. In a revision filed by the accused, sentence cannot be enhanced from what was awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge awarded a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of Rs.45,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. In the revision, filed by the accused, it is not possible to enhance the sentence. The revision can only be dismissed. Though petitioner sought two weeks time to pay the compensation, as Exhibit P1 dishonoured cheque is dated 14.9.1999 and the revision itself was pending from 2004 onwards, he is not entitled to get any further time to pay the compensation. CRRP 369/04 3 Revision is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolencherry on 21.08.2010. Petitioner need deposit only the balance amount if he has deposited any amount pursuant to the direction of this Court for suspending the sentence. The Magistrate is directed to execute the sentence. 5th August, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv