IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2099 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRA.427/2007 of ADDL. SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA CC.190/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ K.V.PAVITHRAN, S/O. KARAPAMPARAMBIL VELAPPAN, KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS/STATE OF KERALA & COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VINAYAKAN, S/O. NAYARUSSERY VELU, NADAVARAMBA DESOM, VELUKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUMDAPURAM TALUK - 680 001 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AJITH KUMAR, S/O. MAYARUSSERY VINAYAKAN, NADAVARAMBA DESOM, VELUKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUMDAPURAM TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.RENI ANTO KANDAMKULATHY THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2099 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 O R D E R Revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 {for short 'the Act'}, concurrently by the two inferior courts. 2. The learned magistrate, on conviction of the accused, has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.5,50,000/-, the cheque amount to the complainant, with default term of simple imprisonment for two months more. Conviction and sentence as imposed against the accused, was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, turning down his appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. Crl.R.P.No. 2099 of 2011 :: 2 :: 3. Revision was filed with a petition to condone delay of 238 days. Notice was ordered to the 2nd respondent/complainant. After appearance of the 2nd respondent and after hearing both sides, the delay was condoned on terms. 4. On such condonation of delay, the revision has come up for consideration. The 2nd respondent is represented by the counsel, who had taken notice on the delay petition. No further notice on the revision is required, is the submission of the respondent. 5. Counsel on both sides submit that the parties have settled the matter with the complainant paying the amount due under the cheque, and that sum received by the complainant. It is submitted by Advocate Sri.P.K.Sajeev on behalf of Advocate Sri.Renil Anto Kandamkulathy, who appeared for the 2nd Crl.R.P.No. 2099 of 2011 :: 3 :: respondent that the complainant has no further grouse or grievance against the accused on the basis of the dishonoured cheque. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel for the accused pleads for modification of the sentence imposed, relieving the accused from the prison term and also the liability to pay the compensation. 7. Parties have settled the matter is not a ground for modification of the sentence. Still, the settlement effected by the parties, while proceedings are pending can be taken note of to modulate the sentence awarded for the offence with which the accused stands convicted. Though the offence is compoundable as under Section 147 of the Act, the liability that would be cast upon the accused, in view of the amount covered by the cheque, is onerous, is the submission of the Crl.R.P.No. 2099 of 2011 :: 4 :: learned counsel that settlement effected by the parties may be taken note of to modify the sentence imposed. 8. Having regard to the submission made by the counsel, I am of the view that confirming the conviction of the accused, the sentence can be modified as indicated hereunder. 9. Affirming the conviction of the accused, sentence is modified, reducing the substantive term of imprisonment to one day, till the rising of the court, with a direction to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner shall appear before the magistrate on 24.10.2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court, and also report the payment of the fine. Till the date fixed as above for appearance of Crl.R.P.No. 2099 of 2011 :: 5 :: the petitioner/accused, the learned magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence. Fine amount, if realised, shall be credited to the State. In default of his appearance and non-payment of the fine, the learned magistrate shall execute the sentence, taking appropriate steps, in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of as indicated above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.