IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1012 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.405/2008 of SESSIONS COURT-1, PALAKKAD ST.1127/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------- T.R.AUTO FINANCE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT OLD NO.52/7, NEW NO.47/7 GENERAL MUTHAIAH STREET SOWCARPET, CHENNAI, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.P.KANNANUNNI, RECOVERY MANAGER T.R.AUTO FINANCE, NO.469 PUDUSSERY BUILDINGS, PALAKKAD - 678 001. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT AND 2ND RESPONDENT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------- 1. SAIDALI, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, KOTAYIL HOUSE, PUNNATHALA POST, VALANCHERY, MALAPPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No. 1012 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 6th Day of June , 2011 ORDER The above Crl.R.P is preferred by the complainant in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short, the N.I.Act), mainly aggrieved by the order of the appellate court by which the appellate court imposed only a lesser punishment of fine against the accused after setting aside the substantial sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and compensation. Another grievance is that when the appellate court imposed sentence of fine, the amount was fixed as Rs.79274/-, in spite of the fact that the cheque amount is Rs.78274/- 2. The Registry reported that the accused in the above case had already approached this court and filed Crl.R.P.No.1829/10 challenging the conviction and sentence and by order dated 3.8.2010, this court disposed of the said Crl.R.P and, though confirmed the sentence of fine Crl.R.P.No.1012/11 -:2:- ordered by the appellate court, the fine amount was enhanced and fixed at Rs.82,000/- and there was a specific direction that, on realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.81,000/- shall be released in favour of the complainant, who is the revision petitioner herein, as compensation under section 357 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. The default sentence is fixed as simple imprisonment for one month. 5. It is relevant to note that the present Crl.R.P. was filed belatedly and there was a delay of of 216 days in filing the above Crl.R.P and the said delay was condoned by this Court on 6.4.2011 and in the meanwhile the accused had preferred the above referred revision petition. As per the said order issued by this Court in the revision petition filed at the instance of the accused, it can be seen that the interest of the complainant had already been taken into consideration and protected the same by enhancing the fine amount and a provision was made to release a sum of Rs.81,000/- in faovur of the complainant, the revision petitioner herein. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, and Crl.R.P.No.1012/11 -:3:- in the light of the order passed by this Court on 3.8.2010 in Crl.R.P.No.1829/2010, I am of the view that no separate orders are required in this Crl. R.P., especially, in view of the direction contained therein and rather if this court passes any order in this Crl.R.P., it will amount to review the earlier order which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, this Crl.R.P. is closed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- Crl.R.P.No.1012/11 -:4:-