IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1780 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.733/2010 OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MUVATTUPUZHA CC.685/2007 OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KOTHAMANGALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLAN/ACCUSED: --------------------- NASEEMA SATHAR,W/O.SATHAR, VALIYACHETTIPARAMBU 44/2417, KALOOR, KOCHI-17 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 2. KLM CHITS SYNDICATE, KOTHAMANGALAM, REP.BY MANAGER, ABDUL LATHEEF, KUNJATTU HOUSE, PALLARIMANGALAM-690107 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RAJESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1780 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused who has been convicted of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the N.I.Act), concurrently by the two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused as confirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal is simple imprisonment for two months and payment of fine of Rs.2,20,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for two months. Fine amount if realised was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 2. Admitting the revision on file notice was ordered to the second respondent/complainant. In response to such notice second respondent entered appearance. 3. When the revision came up for consideration the counsel on both sides, more than once, requested for adjournment submitting that the parties are making attempts to settle the mater and file a composition petition. However, no petition for composition to record the settlement of the parties, if any, reached has been filed hither to. 4. When the revision came up today before the Court, the Crl.R.P.No. 1780 of 2011 2 counsel on both sides submitted that part of the amount awarded as compensation, a sum of Rs.25,000/-, has been paid by the accused and received by the complainant, and both of them have agreed to provide a period of four months time to the petitioner/accused to pay the balance amount fixed and awarded as compensation. Recording of the settlement as above is requested for by the counsel on both sides, to dispose the revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused also requested for modification of the substantive term of imprisonment imposed, in view of the settlement effected by the parties as aforesaid. 6. Normally settlement effected by the parties and composition of offence requested for can be entertained only following the guidelines given by the Apex Court in (Damodhar S Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal {2010 (2) KLT 587 (SC)). In the present case other than recording of the settlement effected by the parties no composition of the offence which in turn would entitle the accused to get an order of acquittal of the offence with which he stands convicted is not applied for, and as such I Crl.R.P.No. 1780 of 2011 3 find the guidelines given in the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court no way interdict the parties from seeking a disposal of the revision in terms of the settlement stated to have been arrived between them. Further more the petitioner/accused is not assailing the conviction imposed for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act any more, but seeks only modification of the substantive term of imprisonment imposed against him. 7. So far as the substantive term of imprisonment imposed against the accused by which he has been directed to under go simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, I find , after going through the judgments rendered by the learned magistrate and learned sessions judge, that no special circumstance warranting the imposition of such a harsh punishment as part of the sentence against him has been made out in the case. Ends of justice would suffice if the sentence against him is modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court , coupled with providing of compensation to the complainant in view of the cheque amount, with the default term of imprisonment. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- is reported to have been paid and received. The Crl.R.P.No. 1780 of 2011 4 balance amount outstanding under the compensation awarded is only Rs.1,95,000/-. Counsel on both sides would submit that the parties have reached a settlement by which the petitioner/ accused has to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, the cheque amount, that alone to discharge his liability over the dishonoured cheque. Since a sum of Rs.25,000/- has already been paid and received, it is submitted what remains due under the compensation is only Rs.1,75,000/-. The amount due as compensation can be limited with the default term of imprisonment as indicated above, is the submission of the counsel on both sides. 8. In view of the settlement effected by the parties as discussed above, the revision is disposed of in the following directions. 9. Affirming the conviction of the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act sentence imposed against him is modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court with compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-, after giving credit to a sum of Rs.25,000/-, already paid during the pendency of the revision, with default term of simple imprisonment for four months. Crl.R.P.No. 1780 of 2011 5 10. Petitioner shall appear before the magistrate on 27.2.2012 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to report the payment of compensation as fixed above. The magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence against the accused till the date fixed as above, for his appearance, to enable him to pay the compensation within such period. In default of his appearance and non-payment of the compensation the magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //True Copy// PA to Judge