IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 200 of 2002(B) ------------------------------ CRA.114/1998 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.189/1997 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- BLESSEN, S/O. PAILY VARGHESE, RESIDING AT AYYANKOLIL HOUSE, KALLOORKAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ROY JAMES, RESIDING AT ANIVELI KUNNEL HOUSE, PADUVA, AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. AMJETH ALI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.200 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of April 2008 ORDER Petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the instance of respondent No.1 herein. The trial court found him guilty and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000. There was a further direction that the fine amount, if realized, shall be paid to the complainant as compensation. In appeal, the above order of conviction and sentence was confirmed. The only modification the learned Sessions Judge made was that Rs.10,000/- shall be treated as compensation. The above order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from him and issued Ext.P2 cheque in discharge of the said debt. But when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured with the endorsement Crl.R.P.No.200 OF 2002 :: 2 :: ‘payment stopped by the petitioner’. The statutory demand notice issued by the complainant did not evoke any response. 3. The complainant got himself examined as PW1 and the bank manager was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P6 and Ext.X1 were marked in the case. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. 4. The defence set up by the accused was that he had entrusted certain signed blank cheque leaves to one K.S.Pillai, the Manager. Ext.P2 must have been one of the said blank cheques, it was contended. The courts below have concurrently repelled the above contention especially in the absence of any satisfactory evidence on the side of the accused. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the materials available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction passed by the courts below. 6. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves some leniency in the matter of sentence, especially since the amount involved in this Crl.R.P.No.200 OF 2002 :: 3 :: case is only Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get an opportunity to pay off the liability. 7. If the petitioner appears before the trial court and remits the amount of compensation as directed by the appellate court, the substantive sentence of imprisonment for 15 days shall stand set aside. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on August 14, 2008 and remit the above sum of Rs.10,000/-. He shall also suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court on that day. On his appearance the learned Magistrate shall ensure that petitioner undergoes imprisonment till the rising of the court on that day. If the petitioner fails to appear and remit compensation, the sentence imposed on him by the appellate court shall remain in force. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes