IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 576 of 2001() ----------------------------- CRA.345/1998 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.100/1995 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- P.A. SANTHOSH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN, PONOTH HOUSE, VENNALA, NEAR KOTTANKAVU TEMPLE, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE SRI.JOICE GEORGE BY ADV. GREENY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1.M.M. PAPPACHAN, S/O. MATHEW, MENACHERRY HOUSE, KUTTILIKARA, PIRAVOOR, P.O. KALADY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN SMT.K.P.SREELATHA PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRL.R.P.No.576 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner was concurrently found guilty under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the trial court as well as the appellate court and convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.17,500/- with a default sentence. It was further directed that a sum of Rs.16,500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code, if the fine amount was realised. The above concurrent order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The case of the complainant was that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.15,000/- from him in connection with a business transaction. In discharge of the said liability, the accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque, which on presentation was dishonoured. The statutory demand notice did not evoke any response nor was the liability discharged. Hence, the complaint. 2 CRL.R.P.NO.576/01 3. The complainant got himself examined as PW1 and his witness was examined as PW2. Exhibits P1 to P6 were also marked on his side. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. 4. The defence set up by the petitioner/accused was that he had returned Rs.10,000/- out of the money borrowed by him. Thus, according to him, there was only a balance of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant. In other words, the accused did not dispute execution of Ext.P1 cheque. The only question left to be decided was whether the accused had proved the plea of discharge. The trial court, after a careful analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, accepted the version given by the complainant and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above. The appellate court, after a re-evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, concurred with the finding entered by the trial court. 5. I have carefully perused the entire materials available on record. Having done so, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the concurrent order of conviction passed by 3 CRL.R.P.NO.576/01 the trial court. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to remit the amount of fine imposed on the petitioner , if some reasonable time is granted to him. The only prayer is that substantive sentence of imprisonment may be deleted. In that view of the matter, I am satisfied that the substantive sentence of imprisonment can be deleted and substituted with a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court. 7. Therefore, while confirming the order of conviction, the substantive sentence of imprisonment for three months imposed on the petitioner by the courts below is deleted. The petitioner shall suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court and remit Rs.17,500/- imposed on him as fine. The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on December 31, 2008. The learned magistrate on appearance of the petitioner shall ensure that he undergoes imprisonment till the rising of the court. If the petitioner fails to appear and remit the fine and suffer the sentence as directed above, the sentence imposed on him by the courts below shall stand 4 CRL.R.P.NO.576/01 confirmed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) cl 5 CRL.R.P.NO.576/01 A.K.BASHEER, J. CRL.R.P.No.576 OF 2001 O R D E R 3rd December, 2008