IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1825 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- [CRL.A.NO.186/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR, CC.NO.1192/2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- AJEESH.M.A,S/O.AYYAPPAN, MUTTATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,CHETTIPARAMBU, IRINJALAKUDA.P.O,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE & LEASING LTD.,MANAPPURAM HOUSE,VALAPPAD.P.O, THRISSUR,REP.BY SENIOR ASSISTANT A.V.UNNIKRISHNAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM- 682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1825 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently by the two inferior courts. Negativing the plea of not guilty canvassed by the accused, the trial Magistrate, on his conviction, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of `34,000/- with default term of imprisonment for three months more. In appeal, affirming the conviction, the learned Sessions Judge modified the substantive term of imprisonment limiting it to imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, but retaining the compensation awarded with default term thereof reduced to one month. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the accused assailed the finding of guilt, concurrently rendered against the petitioner/accused contending that the defence canvassed that he was a minor at the time of entering into the contract, in relation to which the cheque was alleged to have been issued at a later point of time after he attained majority, was not properly appreciated by the courts below Crl.R.P. No.1825 OF 2011 2 despite production of documentary materials substantiating the defence as to his minority at the time of the transaction with the complainant, which was entered into with his mother and another party. The evidence of the complainant examined as PW1 was given unmeritted consideration by the court below discarding the sworn testimony of the accused as DW1, is the further submission of the counsel contending that there was total misappreciation of the materials on record and it has resulted in forming wrong conclusion causing miscarriage of justice. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the trial Magistrate and also that of the learned Sessions Judge, I find, the defence pleaded by the accused was considered by both courts and it was repelled holding that the cheque was issued at a point of time after attaining of majority by the accused. Even assuming that the transaction, which gave rise to the liability covered by the cheque was entered by him along with his mother, at a point of time when he was a minor, after he became major, the benefit enjoyed under the transaction as a minor could be acknowledged, and such liability could be discharged issuing the cheque. Where the cheque had been issued after attaining of majority, which has been proved in the case, there is no merit in the plea canvassed that the liability relating to the issue of cheque was at a point of time when he was Crl.R.P. No.1825 OF 2011 3 minor. I do not find any impropriety in the conclusion formed by the two courts to hold the accused guilty, and the conviction imposed against the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act is found to be proper and correct. 4. So far as the sentence imposed, sufficient leniency has been extended by the learned Sessions Judge in reducing the substantive term of imprisonment to one day retaining the compensation fixed with default term. So much so, sentence also does not warrant any interference. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused sought for time to pay the compensation and, thus, avoid the default term of imprisonment. Compensation awarded is only `34,000/- in relation to a cheque for a sum of `33,656/- dated 11-04-2006 has to be taken note of in examining the request for further extension of time. Evidently, the revision petitioner cannot seek further extension in such a case. However, taking note of the submissions made by the counsel, the Magistrate concerned is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence against the petitioner for a period of six weeks from today to enable him to pay the compensation. 6. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 20-09-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for Crl.R.P. No.1825 OF 2011 4 one day till the rising of the court, and to report payment of compensation. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of compensation, the Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge