IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3108 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRA.893/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), ERNAKULAM ST.468/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOCHI .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------- D.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, METALIC EQUIPMENT,USMANIA COMPLEX, CONVENT ROAD, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ABHILASH SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDETNTS/CPMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. REGENCY CERAMICS LTD, 1203/A/50, A1-ELFANS BUIDING EDAPALLY RAILWAY STATION ROAD, EDAPPALLY, ELAMAKKARA PO.COCHIN=782 026, REP.BY SENIOR AREA MANAGER, G.ANILKUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.E.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. SEENA R2 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM THOMAS (PUTHURAN) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, ALONG WITH CRRP NO.3109/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NOS.3108, 3109, 3110, 3111 & 3112 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 O R D E R These five revisions are filed by the common accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'Act', concurrently by the two courts below, separately, in five cases. Among the aforesaid five cases, four of them were filed by a common complainant, a company, and the other one by a sister concern of that company. Crl.R.P.Nos.3108, 3109, 3110 and 3112 of 2009 arose from the conviction entered in the four cheque cases filed by the common complainant and Crl.R.P.No.3111 of 2009 from the complaint filed by its sister concern. The four complaints separately filed by the aforesaid company were jointly tried by the Magistrate. Negativing the plea of not guilty canvassed by the accused, he was found guilty and convicted in all the aforesaid complaint cases awarding him sentence of Crl.R.P.NOS.3108, 3109, 3110, 3111 & 2 3112 OF 2009 imprisonment for various terms with direction to pay compensation with default term of imprisonment. Complaint filed by the sister concern of the former company also ended in conviction of the accused, and awarding of sentence against him. When appeals were preferred against his conviction in the five cases referred to above, the Sessions Judge heard such appeals together and disposed them by a common judgment. Substantive term of imprisonment imposed against the accused in the cases, each of them, was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and the cheque amount in the respective cases was awarded as compensation with default term of imprisonment. In so far as the four compliant cases filed by the common complainant thereof, the default term provided in the event of non-payment of the compensation in lieu of the cheque amount was a period of simple imprisonment for three months each in such cases. In respect of the complaint case filed by the sister concern of the aforesaid company, the default term of imprisonment fixed was simple imprisonment for one month. In all these revisions, in response to the notice issued, both the Crl.R.P.NOS.3108, 3109, 3110, 3111 & 3 3112 OF 2009 complainants, as referred to above, have entered appearance. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the accused reiterated the challenges raised before the court below to assail his conviction concurrently rendered in all the five cases against him. Going through the judgments rendered by the courts below, I do not find any merit in the challenges so canvassed to interfere with the concurrent finding of guilt rendered against the accused by the courts below, which is seen made after meticulous consideration of the materials produced. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only within the narrow compass permitted by law and a reappraisal of the evidence to test the correctness of the decision of the inferior court is permissible only when a case is made out that the finding entered by the subordinate court suffers from serious infirmity warranting interference to advance the ends of justice. No such case has been made out in these revisions, and as such, a detailed consideration of the challenges raised by the counsel to assail the conviction is not called for in exercise of revisional Crl.R.P.NOS.3108, 3109, 3110, 3111 & 4 3112 OF 2009 jurisdiction. 3. At this stage, the counsel urging that the petitioner is now undergoing incarceration, suffering the sentences imposed, canvassed for reducing the default term of imprisonment imposed. In the four cases filed by the common complainant, company, where the cheque amount involved varied widely, the learned Sessions Judge has awarded uniform default term of imprisonment of three months each, is pointed out by the counsel that there is no rational in the fixation of the default term of imprisonment. The quantum of the cheque amount, it appears, was not taken into account when the Sessions Judge awarded the default term of imprisonment in the aforesaid four cases. But that cannot be canvassed as a ground enabling the accused to seek modification of the default term of imprisonment. However, having regard to the fact that he stands convicted of five cheque cases, and that he is now undergoing imprisonment, in execution of the sentences awarded thereof, I find a modification of the default term of Crl.R.P.NOS.3108, 3109, 3110, 3111 & 5 3112 OF 2009 imprisonment atleast in the four cases filed by the complainant, can be ordered. 4. So far as the default term of imprisonment awarded in the complaint filed by the sister concern of the aforesaid common complainant, it is seen, that only simple imprisonment for one month is fixed for. No interference with the default term of imprisonment so provided is called for. As regards the default term of imprisonment covered by the four complaint cases three months period in each of such cases shall stand reduced to two months each. Sentence imposed against the accused in such cases shall stand ordered accordingly. 5. Crl.R.P.No.3111 of 2009 arising from S.T.No.467 of 2006 shall stand dismissed with the conviction and sentence confirmed without any modification. So far as the revisions Crl.R.P.No.3108 of 2009 arising from S.T.No.468 of 2006, Crl.R.P.No.3109 of 2009, from S.T.No.469 of 2006, Crl.R.P.No.3110 of 2009, from S.T.No.470 of 2006, and, Crl.R.P.NOS.3108, 3109, 3110, 3111 & 6 3112 OF 2009 Crl.R.P.No.3112 of 2009, from S.T.No.461 of 2006, conviction shall stand confirmed with the sentence in such cases modified as imprisonment till the rising of the court with default term of imprisonment for two months each in such cases. Subject to the above modification as regards the default term of imprisonment in the four revisions referred to above, in all other respects, the revisions shall stand dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.NOS.3108, 3109, 3110, 3111 & 7 3112 OF 2009