IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 650 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRA.784/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.679/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------------------------------- M. SADASIVAN NAIR, GANESH BHAVAN, KARUNILAKODE, EDAVA P.O., VARKALA. BY ADV. MR. D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE:- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. D. MOHANAKURUPPU, S/O. NARAYANAKURUPPU, CHARUVILA VEEDU, VADASSERIKONAM, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.650 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner who was the accused in C.C. No. 679 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Varkala, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the courts below for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution as disclosed by the oral and documentary evidence is as follows:- On 04.12.1997, the revision petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant agreeing to pay the sum within one month and issued Ext.P1 post dated cheque for the said amount bearing the date 05.01.1998. When the complainant presented the cheque, it was dishonoured by the drawee bank as evidenced by Ext.P2 dishonour memo for the reason that the account was closed long ago. The complainant issued Crl.R.P. No. 650/2010 : 2 : Ext.P3 notice dated 16.02.1998 and the same was returned as refused as evidenced by Ext.P5. A private complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as C.C. No. 225 of 1999 before the same court was withdrawn with liberty to file a complaint under Section 420 Cr.P.C since at that point of time, closure of account was not a ground which enabled the complainant to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was thereafter that the complainant filed the present complaint before the same court under Section 420 IPC. Both the courts below have recorded the conviction against the revision petitioner after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the conviction entered against the petitioner. Hence the same is confirmed. 3. For the said conviction, he was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of Crl.R.P. No. 650/2010 : 3 : Rs.60,000/- and on default to pay the compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. On appeal preferred by him as Crl. Appeal No. 784 of 2007 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed. Hence this revision. 4. As mentioned earlier, the conviction has been entered after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case and it does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court sitting in revision. The same is accordingly confirmed. With regard to the sentence, I am of the view that interests of justice would be adequately met by reducing the sentence of imprisonment to one till the rising of the court and directing the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount of Rs.60,000/- within four months. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead, he is sentenced to imprisonment till the Crl.R.P. No. 650/2010 : 4 : rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- to PW1 within four months from today. The said compensation shall be either paid directly to PW1 and a receipt produced before the trial court or shall be deposited before the trial court. In the event of failure to pay or deposit the compensation amount the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 23.06.2010 for receiving the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court. This revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 650/2010 : 5 :