IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 14 of 2003() ---------------------------- CRA.180/2002 of VI ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.478/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ M.K. THANKAPPAN, HOUSE NO.14/120, CHULLICKAL, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.T.O.XAVIER RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------- 1. MARY THOMAS, C.C.NO.156/67 A, CHAKKALAKAL VEEDU, KOCHI-5. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.14/2003 -------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 ORDER The accused in C.C.No.478/1998 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, who was convicted and sentenced for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenges the same, it having been affirmed by the appellate Court also. On finding the petitioner guilty, the trial Court had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months. But further directed to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- to PW1 as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Same was affirmed by the appellate Court. 2. I heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though notice has been served from this Court, there is no appearance on behalf of the complainant. I take note of the fact that the cheque in question, Ext.P1, was issued for an amount of Rs.75,000/-. This Court had, at the time of admitting the revision, and passing an order suspending Crl.R.P.14/2003 2 the sentence, required the petitioner to deposit half of the cheque amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same was complied with. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after having perused the records, I think it is appropriate that the sentence imposed by the Court below can be modified by reducing the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court but retaining the direction to pay compensation. 4. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. While sustaining the conviction of the petitioner, accused, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the sentence imposed on him by the Courts below is modified to the following effect. 5. The accused shall suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court. He shall pay to the complainant, PW1, an amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation, under Section Crl.R.P.14/2003 3 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This shall be done within two months from today. Petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 6.10.2008 to undergo the sentence of imprisonment as directed herein. The amount already deposited shall be given credit to. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs