IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2011 / 4TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2048 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.26/2011 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), THODUPUZHA ST.16/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FEDERT CHITS INDIA PVT. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE HBS COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, KATTAPPANA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MG. DIRECTOR JOLLY JOSEPH. 2. JOLLY JOSEPH, CHAIRMAN AND MG. DIRECTOR, FEDERT CHITS INDIA PVT. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE HBS COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, KATTAPPANA. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN, SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BABU JOHN, S/O.JOHN, VANTHIYIL HOUSE, MANAKKAD. P.O., THODUPUZHA-685 584. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2048 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused, two in number, who have been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently, by the two inferior courts. The first accused is a registered firm and the second accused, its Managing Director, which is dealing with chitty business. The amount payable to the complainant, towards a chitty transaction from the firm, was paid by way of a cheque, which on presentation was dishonoured and notice issued intimating the dishonour and demanding the sum was not responded, was the case of the complainant. Negativing the plea of not guilty canvassed by the accused, the learned Magistrate, on conviction, sentenced the second accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of `.22,900/-, the cheque amount, under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the complainant, with default term of simple imprisonment for a period of one month more. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, affirming the conviction and sentence, dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision petition has been filed by them. Crl.R.P No.2048 OF 2011 - 2 - 2. I heard the learned counsel for the accused. There was no cross examination of the complainant examined as PW1 and the unchallenged version of the complainant was accepted to found a conviction against the accused, is the submission of the counsel. An opportunity for examining the complainant afresh is urged for by the counsel seeking remission of the case. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find no merit in the request made for further opportunity on remission of the case. Evidently, the accused has no defence to be canvassed to challenge the case of the complainant and they preferred not to cross examine the complainant examined as PW1. Statutory notice issued was acknowledged, but, not responded is also a telling circumstance that they have no defence to be raised in the trial of the case. Both the courts, on the materials placed, found that the case of the complainant is genuine, and, accordingly, the conviction for the offence imputed, was founded against the accused. In fact, there is no challenge against the conviction as such. So far as the sentence imposed also, it cannot be stated that it is in any way excessive. So much so, conviction and sentence of the accused are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Crl.R.P No.2048 OF 2011 - 3 - 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused requested for three months time to pay the compensation awarded, to enable the second accused to avoid the default term of imprisonment. Having regard to the nature of the transaction, that the amount covered by the cheque was paid towards the prising of the chitty, collected by way of subscription from the complainant, I find no merit in the request made for further extension of time. However, taking note of the submissions made by the counsel, some more time can be granted as indicated hereunder to pay the compensation. 5. Second petitioner/ second accused is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 03-10-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and to report payment of compensation within such period. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date as above, fixed for his appearance. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, the learned 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