IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2078 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.25/2011 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), ERNAKULAM CC.336/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 & 2 ---------------------------------- 1. M/S.ENSIGN TRADERS,KONDERIKKAL BUILDINGS VELOOR P.O,KOTTAYAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. PHILIP KURUVILA,MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S.ENSIGN TRADERS,KONDERIKKAL BUILDINGS VELOOR P.O,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANAT & STATE ----------------------------------- 1. M/S.KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,ST.JOSEPH PRESS BUILDINGS, COTTON HILL,VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14 (BRANCH OFFICE AT CHITTOOR ROAD,KACHERIPADY, KOCHI 682 018). 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMG S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2078 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused, two in number, a private limited company and its Managing Director, who have been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently by the two inferior courts. The learned Magistrate, on conviction, has sentenced the first accused Company to pay a fine of `.24,000/- and the second accused, the Managing Director, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of `.24,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for three months more. In appeal, affirming the conviction, the learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence imposed against the accused reducing the fine amount to `.16,000/-, by each of them, imposing simple imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, on the second accused with a default term of simple imprisonment for one month in the event of nonpayment of the fine by him. Feeling aggrieved, both the accused together have filed this revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No challenge against the conviction imposed against the accused is canvassed for. Sentence passed by the court below even after the modification Crl.R.P No.2078 OF 2011 - 2 - made by the learned Sessions Judge as indicated above, is excessive and unreasonable, is the submission of the counsel. Cheque amount involved in the case is only `.24,207/-. When that be so, directing both the accused to pay a sum of `.16,000/- each as fine was not proper and correct, is the submission of the counsel. First respondent/complainant is a Government company is also canvassed for to contend that fine or compensation awarded by the court should have been limited to the cheque amount. I do not find any merit in the submission made by the counsel. Penal provision covered by Section 138 of the NI Act on conviction of the offender thereof contemplate punishment of imprisonment extending to a period of two years and also double the cheque amount. When that be so, the amount fixed towards fine and that too after modifying the substantive term of imprisonment imposed against the second accused by the trial Judge, reducing it to imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, cannot be assailed as excessive and unreasonable. 3. Cheque involved in the case is dated 03-01-2007. The fact that the complainant is a Government company, will no way assist the accused to contend that a lesser amount alone need be imposed as fine. Crl.R.P No.2078 OF 2011 - 3 - 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused requested for some time to pay the fine and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment imposed against the second accused, the Managing Director of the first accused Company. The first accused Company is now defunct is the submission of the counsel to seek for time to pay the fine. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel, I find, some more time as indicated hereunder can be extended to him to pay the fine. 5. Affirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused, both of them, the second accused is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 17-10-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the fine. Till the date fixed as above for his appearance, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence. In default of appearance of the second accused and nonpayment of the compensation, the Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is dismissed with the above directions. vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE