IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2336 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRA.194/2009 of IInd ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE/SPL.JUDGE FOR NDPS ACT CASES, THODUPUZHA. ST.125/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED :- ------------------------------------------------------------------ SOBHA SOMAN, W/O.SOMAN, AGED 41 YEARS, KUDIYIRICKAL HOUSE, PURAPUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.N.BABU, KUNNATHEL HOUSE, ARIKUZHA KARA, MANAKKADU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SUMANGALA P.N. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2336 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of September 2010 O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as she is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused/revision petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and towards the discharge of the debt due to the complainant, she issued a cheque dated 12.8.2008 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-, which when presented for encashment dishonoured, as there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and the cheque amount was not repaid inspite of a formal Crl.R.P.No.2336 of 2010 -: 2 :- demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. With the said allegation, the complainant approached the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thodupuzha, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted S.T.No.125/2008. From the side of the complainant, PW1 was examined and marked Exts.P1 to P7 documents. Though no witness was examined from the side of the defence, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. On the basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner/accused for the purpose of discharging her debt due to the complainant. Thus accordingly the court found that, the complainant has established the case against the accused/ revision petitioner and consequently held that the accused is guilty and thus convicted her u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Crl.R.P.No.2336 of 2010 -: 3 :- On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.52,000/- to the complainant u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. and the default sentence is fixed as three months simple imprisonment. 3. Though an appeal was filed, at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused, by judgment dated 24.3.2010 in Crl.A.No.194/2009, the Court of IInd Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Thodupuzha allowed the appeal only in part, confirming the conviction and substantial sentence, the order to pay compensation of Rs.52,000/- is modified and reduced to Rs.50,000/- equal to the cheque amount. The default sentence is fixed as three months simple imprisonment. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts below. Crl.R.P.No.2336 of 2010 -: 4 :- 5. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the revision petitioner may be permitted to pay the compensation directly to the complainant within one month from today. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also confirmed the order of sentence of imprisonment and the direction to pay the compensation and the default sentence issued by the lower appellate court. But the revision petitioner is granted one month time from today to pay the compensation and the default sentence is attracted only if there is any failure to pay the amount within one month from today. Accordingly the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 4th October, 2010 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. It is made clear that the Crl.R.P.No.2336 of 2010 -: 5 :- revision petitioner is free to pay the compensation amount either directly to the complainant or by remitting the same in the trial court whichever subject to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. In case any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in payment of compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence awarded against the revision petitioner. The coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 5.10.2010. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt