IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3135 of 2003(C) ------------------------------- CRA.NO.366/2002 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.4464/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PONNANI .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED (PETITIONER IN CUSTODY): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASHRAF, S/O. SULAIMAN, NADUVATH HOUSE, P.O.PLEAVANOOR, NARAMPUZHA, PONNANI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. V.RAJU, S/O.THAMU, VATTIKKATTU HOUSE, P.O.MUKUTHALA, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.3135 OF 2003 -------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July 2011 ORDER The accused prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act) has filed this revision challenging his conviction for such offence, concurrently by the two inferior courts. Cheque amount involved is only Rs.30,000/-. After trial, in which complainant alone let in evidence, negativing the plea of not guilty canvassed by the accused, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/-, the cheque amount, to the complainant. In the appeal preferred by the accused, while confirming the conviction, the learned Magistrate modified the direction to pay compensation limiting it to Rs.5,000/-, holding that the Magistrate has competency to impose fine only upto that limit. Impeaching his conviction, and sentence as aforesaid, the accused has filed this revision. 2. Though the revision petitioner/ accused has taken a defence that the cheque involved was not executed by him, despite the complainant mounting the box and asserting that the Crl.R.P No.3135/2011 - 2 - cheque was issued by the accused, no counter evidence was tendered to substantiate the defence set up to resist the prosecution. Further more, no material was also tendered to sustain such plea raised by the accused. The trial Magistrate found no merit in the defence and the learned Sessions Judge, after reappraisal of the evidence, concurred with that view as well. After going through the judgments rendered by the two courts below, I find that there is no sustainable ground to interfere with the concurrent finding of guilt entered against the petitioner by the courts below and his conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. So far as sentence imposed against the petitioner, having regard to the fact that prosecution giving rise to his conviction is in relation to the dishonour of a cheque issued by him, the substantive term of imprisonment imposed is modified. 3. Petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court, and also pay the sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation, within one month, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. 4. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Magistrate on 22-08-2011 to serve out the sentence as indicated above and also to report payment of the compensation. In default Crl.R.P No.3135/2011 - 3 - of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, as fixed above, the learned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps to execute the sentence. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge