IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1744 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.210/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM ST.1116/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- VAHID, ARIN TRADERS, ALUVILLA HOUSE, KARIYAR.P.O, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ANAZ ALI.K.A, BISMILLA MANZIL, VAIKOM.P.O - 686 141. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SAJU JOHN FOR R-1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SU S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P No.1744 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2011. ORDER Revision is by the accused who has been convicted of the offence under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act'). 2. The revision was filed with a petition to condone delay of 615 days. Taking note of the submission made by the counsel at that stage that the revision petitioner/accused is working in a Gulf country and a warrant is pending against him, subject to conditions imposed execution of warrant, if any, issued against him, was directed to be kept in abeyance. He was directed to deposit the entire amount covered by the cheque as a condition precedent, to issue notice on the delay petition to the respondent/complainant. That being complied with, notice was given to the respondent. He did not turn up at that stage. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, later, delay was condoned. Subsequently, respondent also entered appearance. Though adjournments were sought for on more than one occasion for Crl.R.P No.1744 of 2011 2 recording the settlement, no composition petition is filed till date. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassing upon the deposit of the amount made complying with the condition imposed by this Court, urged for modifying the sentence imposed against the accused. Sentence imposed against the accused, as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in appeal, is one of simple imprisonment for four months, directing him to pay compensation of Rs.95,000/-, with default term of simple imprisonment for two months more. The revision petitioner/accused has deposited the cheque amount of Rs.95,000/-, which has been awarded as compensation complying with the condition imposed by this Court for condoning the delay in filing the revision by itself is no ground to relieve him from the substantive term of punishment imposed. However, having regard to the nature of the offence, I find the sentence can be modified. Modification of the sentence is made taking note of the deposit of the compensation awarded and its release to the respondent/complainant. Affirming the conviction, sentence of the accused is modified reducing it to imprisonment for a day till the rising of the court with fine of Crl.R.P No.1744 of 2011 3 Rs.12,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for two months. 4. Petitioner shall report before the Magistrate on 19.12.2011 to serve out the imprisonment for a day, till rising of the court, and to report the payment of fine. Till the date fixed as above the Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence to enable him to pay the fine within such period. In default of his appearance and non payment of fine, the Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of as indicated above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE mns