IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2626 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.788/2008 of IST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.4112/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- PIOUS THATTIL,S/O.JOSEPH THATTIL MANDI HOUSE, ANTHIKKADU THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. JOJO ANTONY, S/O. K.P.ANTONY KUNDUKULANGARA HOUSE,VADAKKUMURI DESOM, ANTHIKKADU VILLAGE, THRISSUR (DT) 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. P.P.SMT.SUMANGALA.. P.N. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2626 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September 2010 O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of the 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 borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant and towards the discharge of the debt due to the complainant, he issued a cheque dated 1.7.2005 for an amount of Rs.60,000/-, 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 inspite of a formal demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has committed the offence Crl.R.P.No.2626 of 2010 -: 2 :- punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. With the said allegation, the complainant approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate No.II, Thrissur, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted S.T.No.4112/2005. During the trial of the case, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. No evidence was 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 held 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 the Negotiable Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant Crl.R.P.No.2626 of 2010 -: 3 :- u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the default sentence was fixed as three months simple imprisonment. 3. Though an appeal was filed, at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused, by judgment dated 2.8.2010 in Crl.A.No.788/2008, the Court of Ist Addl. Sessions Judge of Thrissur allowed the appeal only in part and thus while confirming the conviction imposed against the revision petitioner, the sentence is modified and reduced to till the rising of the court. While maintaining the order of pay compensation, the default sentence is reduced to 11/2 months. Accordingly the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 6.9.2010 to receive the sentence. 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 order of conviction recorded by the courts below, the counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, a breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation Crl.R.P.No.2626 of 2010 -: 4 :- amount and to receive the sentence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered favourably and some time can be granted to pay the compensation amount but subject to slight enhancement with respect to the compensation amount since the cheque in question is dated 1.7.2005 and the amount is being with the revision petitioner for the last 5 years. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below and accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment as modified and fixed by the appellate court is confirmed. The revision petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.67,500/- to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. within three months from today and in case of any default in paying the amount within the stipulated time, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the Crl.R.P.No.2626 of 2010 -: 5 :- revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 3rd December, 2010 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount, as fixed by this court. In case any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in making the payment of compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and compensation awarded against the revision petitioner. The coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 3.12.2010. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt