IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 3RD ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2998 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.201/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY STC.3800/2003 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- SURESH BABU, S/O.KUNHAMBU, AGED 42 YEARS, BUSINESS, RAYAROTH HOUSE, CHOKLI POST, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- 1. USMAN B., S/O.MAMMU, 43 YEARS, JAMEELA MANZIL, CHOKLI AMSOM, MENAPRA DESOM, P.O.CHOKLI. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2998 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.3800/03 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.25,000/-. Out of the fine, Rs.23,000/- was ordered to be paid to the 1st respondent as compensation. Though he filed Crl.Appeal No.201/2004 before the Sessions Judge, Thalassery, he was not successful. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perusing the judgment of the courts below I find Crl.R.P.No.2998 of 2009 2 that the first respondent who was examined as PW.1 has succeeded to establish that the revision petitioner owed a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the first respondent and in discharge of the liability Ext.P1 cheque dated 25/9/2003 drawn on Chockli Service Co-operative Bank was issued and that when Ext.P1 was sent for collection it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds as evidenced by Ext.P2. Though a lawyer notice, copy of which was marked as Ext.P3 demanding discharge of the liability was acknowledged as evidenced by Ext.P4, the liability was not discharged. In the above circumstance, the courts below were justified in arriving the conclusion of guilt. The conviction under challenge is unassailable. 4. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner is a coolie having no permanent source of income and his financial difficulties led him to face the prosecution. In the above special circumstance and the cheque amount was only Rs.20,000/-, I find that the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months imposed is highly excessive. I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision Crl.R.P.No.2998 of 2009 3 petitioner. Hence substantive sentence impugned requires modification. I find that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court would meet the ends of justice. 5. In the result the revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction under challenge is confirmed. The substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of court. The fine imposed is sustained. The direction to pay compensation is also sustained. The revision petitioner is granted 6 months time for payment of fine on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within 15 days. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.