IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 724 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.239/1994 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CC.198/1994 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MALAPPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------ A.M.PREMBHOOSHAN, MANAGING PARTNER, M.S.VARUNA ENGINEERING WORKS, KOORKKAMCHERI, THRISSUR -7. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. HAMZA, S/O.NELLIKKUTH MOKARI, KODUR AMSOM DESOM, PERINTALMANNA TALUK. R1 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.3946 OF 2000 IN CRL.R.P.NO.724 OF 2000 //DISMISSED// 05.09.2008. SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.724 OF 2000 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This revision is against an order of conviction and sentence imposed for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed accusing that the revision petitioner had obtained a loan of Rs.50,000/- and issued a cheque, which was returned on presentation for insufficiency of funds. The issuance of the cheque, the legal liability thereunder, statutory notice and relevant aspects leading to the cause of action for the institution of the complaint was duly proved before the court of first instance, which heard the evidence of the complainant and took on record Exts.P1 to P6, of which, Ext.P1 is the cheque. There is no defence evidence. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused took the stand that the cheque was issued to another person and that it was abused. No legal evidence was on record in support of that plead. The person to whom the accused allegedly issued the cheque was not examined. CRRP.724/00 Page numbers 2. The trial court, having been satisfied with the evidence tendered by the complainant, convicted the accused and imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for one year. That has been confirmed by the court of session in appeal which re-appreciated the evidence and came to the same conclusion. I do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction. 3. Complaining that the sentence imposed on the accused is highly exorbitant and is entitled to be trimmed down, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the cheque was issued in the year 1993 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and even the imposition of fine would be sufficient as his client would be prepared to pay such fine. Having heard counsel for the complainant and the counsel for the accused even in that regard, it is noticed that in terms of the N.I. Act, interest at the rate of 18% would have accrued, which, by this time, would have grown to a very huge amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and having heard the learned counsel for the complainant specifically in that regard also, it is found that an CRRP.724/00 Page numbers amount of Rupees One Lakh as fine and compensation would suffice apart from the other sentence being imposed hereby. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is ordered that: (i) The revision is allowed in part. (ii) The finding of guilt and the conviction are confirmed. (iii) The sentence imposed by the courts below on the revision petitioner is vacated. In supersession thereof, the revision petitioner/accused is sentenced: (a) to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court, for a day; and (b) to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of which, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Any amount already deposited in CRRP.724/00 Page numbers terms of the interim orders will be given due credit to against the fine. (c) The fine, if paid or realized, shall be treated as compensation payable to the complainant and shall be released accordingly. The learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps for execution of the modified sentence hereby imposed. The revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the court below on 18-9-2008 to suffer the sentence. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate shall take necessary action against the revision petitioner and his sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if he does not appear as directed above. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.