IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3864 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.265/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.137/2008 of the JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II(ADDL.MUNSIFF), KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- 1. MR.A.PADMAKUMAR, CHAIRMAN, DR.A.M.E.TRUST PERIYA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KASARAGOD-671 316. 2. DR.A.M.E.TRUST PERIYA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, KASARAGOD-671 316. REP. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN-MR.A.PADMAKUMAR. BY MR.T.B.SHAJIMON,ADVOCATE SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT- CORPORATION, SHOW ROOM AT KC 11-268-J.KDC BANK BUILDING, KASARAGOD,(A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REG.OFFICE AT KANNUR AND SHOW ROOM KASARAGOD) REPRESENTING THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER-CHANDRAN. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN,J. ========================= Crl.R.P.No.3864 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.137/2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class- II,(Additional Munsiff), Kasaragod. They purchased clothes from the second respondent company on credit and in discharge of the liability Ext.P1-cheque for Rs.1,61,233/-(Rupees one lakh sixty one thousand two hundred and thirty three only) dated 15.05.2007 drawn on Bedaduka Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, Kundamkuzhi was delivered to the 2nd respondent and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was returned bounced for insufficiency of funds. Though notice was served upon the revision petitioners demanding discharge of the liability, the revision petitioners did not discharge the liability. Neither any reply was sent. With this plea, revision petitioners were prosecuted by the 2nd respondent. 2. The revision petitioners pleaded not guilty. They were sent for trial. On the side of the second respondent, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. Revision Crl.R.P.No.3864/2009 2 petitioners had no good defence other than total denial and discharge. No defence evidence was let in. The learned Magistrate, on appraisal of the evidence, arrived a finding of guilty. Consequently the revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs.1,61,233/-(Rupees one lakh sixty one thousand two hundred and thirty three only) to the second respondent as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In Crl.Appeal No.256/2008, the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for ten days. The order to pay compensation was sustained. Now this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioners are not assailing the conviction but the sentence is assailed. According to the learned counsel, the clothes were purchased from the second respondent for the uniform of the students studying in a school run by the second revision petitioner-Trust and that the first revision petitioner was holding the post of the Chairman of the trust only for a short period and now he is not holding the post and because of the financial difficulties the payment could not be made. With this Crl.R.P.No.3864/2009 3 submission, he sought for leniency in sentence. In the peculiar circumstances and the facts of the case, I find that as regards the sentence, the revision petitioners are entitled to a little leniency. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the sentence the substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. The revision petitioners are further sentenced to a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) and Rs.1,61,233/-(Rupees one lakh sixty one thousand two hundred and thirty three only) respectively. In default of payment of fine, the first revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month and the 2nd respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioners are granted six months time for payment of the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by the revision petitioners shall remain in force. On realisation of the fine, it shall be paid to the second respondent as compensation u/s.357(1) Cr.P.C. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. dvs