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. 2614 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRA.262/2005 of Ist ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.3673/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED (NOT IN CUSTODY) :- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KARAPPAN, MUDAVANGATTIL HOUSE, CHAZHOOR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. YOGHAKSHEMAM KURIES & LOANS LTD., ANTHIKKAD P.O., REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER-IN- CHARGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680641. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED 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.2614 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 he is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 2. The case of the complainant namely; Yoghakshemam Kuries & Loans Ltd. is that, the accused availed a loan of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant. But the accused failed to repay the amount in time as per the terms of the agreement and finally towards the discharge of the entire liability the accused issued a cheque dated 29.5.2002 for an amount of Rs.60,502/-, which when presented for encashment dishonoured, as there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and the cheque Crl.R.P.No.2614 of 2010 -: 2 :- amount was not repaid inspite of a formal 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, Thrissur, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was taken u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted S.T.No.3673/2002. During the trial of the case, from the side of the complainant PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P13 were marked. From the side of the defence Ext.D1 was 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 his 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 him u/s.138 of the Crl.R.P.No.2614 of 2010 -: 3 :- Negotiable Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for one day ie; till the rising of the court and also directed him to pay a sum of Rs.60,502/- to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. The default sentence is fixed as 3 months simple imprisonment. 3. Though an appeal was filed, at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused, by judgment dated 27.2.2010 in Crl.A.No.262/2005, the Ist Addl. Sessions Judge of Thrissur dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the above conviction and sentence are challenged in this revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts below. 5. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the courts below, the Crl.R.P.No.2614 of 2010 -: 4 :- learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, a breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered favourably and three months time can be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation ordered by the court below. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment as modified and refixed by the lower appellate court is confirmed. Thus, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment as modified and refixed by the courts below and also the direction to pay a sum of Rs.60,502/- as compensation to the complainant, the revision petitioner is directed to pay the said amount within two months from today and in case any default in paying the amount within Crl.R.P.No.2614 of 2010 -: 5 :- the stipulated time, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 3rd November, 2010 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount. 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 3.11.2010. Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt