IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1444 of 2006() -------------------------------------- CRA.432/2002 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT I, PALAKKAD CC.291/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED : ---------------------------------------------------- NARAYANANSWAMY, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MAHALIKOODAM, THENKURISSI, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SREE PADAM CHITS (P) LTD., COLLEGE ROAD, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY V.A.RAMACHANDRAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) - R1 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1444 of 2006 ORDER ON CRL.M.APPLN.NO.4022 OF 2006 IN CRL.R.P.NO.1444 OF2006 DISMISSED 29.10.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P..A TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL. R.P..No. 1444 OF 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 ORDER This Revision is preferred against the confirmation of conviction and modification of sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Palakkad. in Crl. Appeal No. 432/2002. The Revision Petitioner was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and to pay a sum of Rs. 20,090/- under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate court. A perusal of the judgment of both the courts below would reveal that the complainant has succeeded in proving that the brother of the Revision Petitioner subscribed to a Kuri and Revision Petitioner stood as a guarantor. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 further established that the Revision Petitioner has signed and issued Ext. P4 cheque towards the discharge of the liability for which he was a guarantor. The courts also found that there is nothing to discredit their evidence. Therefore I do not find any material irregularity or impropriety committed by the courts below in arriving at a decision. So the conviction passed by the courts below stand confirmed. So far as the sentence is concerned, I am inclined to CRL. R.P..No. 1444 OF 2006 -2- modify the sentence by sentencing to undergo Imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,100/- which on realisation be disbursed to the complainant. In default, the Revision Petitioner has to undergo Imprisonment for two months. In the result Crl. R.P is disposed of as follows: 1. The conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is confirmed. 2. The Revision Petitioner is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one day i.e, till the rising of the court and to pay a find of Rs. 20,100/- which on realisation be disbursed to the complainant. In default of payment of fine the Revision Petitioner shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months. 3. The Revision Petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court to receive sentence of Imprisonment and payment of fine on 14.1.2009. In default, the Trial Court shall execute the sentence. If there is any amount in deposit before the Magistrate Court it shall be treated as part of the fine amount and let that be disbursed to the defacto complainant on an application. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm