IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3394 of 2003(A) ------------------------------- CRA.157/2000 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT NO.1, MANJERI. ST.1234/1997 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PONNANI. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- MACHINGALATH MOHANAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PARANGODAN, 508-A13 STREET, HARI NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.BABU, SMT.N.SUDHA. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHOZHIYATTEL MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SIDDIQUE, ERAMANGALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, PONNANI TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M.THOMBRA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3394 of 2003 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 Order The accused in a case filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is the revision petitioner. He was convicted by the learned Magistrate and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months and to pay Rs.1,25,000/- as fine. In appeal, the conviction was confirmed. But the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence by reducing the fine to Rs.5000/-, but confirming the sentence of imprisonment for 3 months. This revision is directed against the said conviction and sentence. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued at length contending that there was no such transaction as stated by the complainant and that the money was not paid to the accused. On going through the judgment, it could be seen that both the courts below have analysed the evidence in detail and came to the conclusion that Ext.P1 cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability of Rs.1 lakh. I find no reason to upset that finding. With regard to the sentence, modification is required. Instead of awarding fine of Rs.5000/- and ordering imprisonment for three Crl.R.P.3394/03 2 months, I find that the imprisonment till the rising of the court and direction to pay Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision is disposed of as stated below: The conviction is confirmed. The revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default, he will undergo S.I. for two months. The revision petitioner will appear before the learned Magistrate on 15th November, 2011 to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay the amount of compensation as aforesaid. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.R.P.3394/03 3 Crl.R.P.3394/03 4