IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2278 of 2004(D) --------------------------------------------- CRA.430/2002 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR ST.1862/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- T.T.PURUSHAN, THANISSERY HOUSE, CHIRAKUNNU, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEVAYANI, MARATHAKKARA HOUSE, UDAYA NAGAR, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SATHOSHKUMAR SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ Criminal Revision Petition No.2278 of 2004(D) ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days and to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The allegation against the accused is that, on 30-8-1996, he issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.20,000/-, which on presentation, was returned dishonoured on the ground that “payment stopped by the drawer”. He was tried, found guilty and sentenced by the learned Magistrate. In Criminal Appeal No.193/1999, the Court of Session set aside the sentence and remitted the case for imposing proper sentence. Thereafter, the sentence and the order for compensation, as noticed above, was imposed. The appeal of the accused was dismissed by the Court of Session. Hence, this revision. Crl.R.P.No.2278/2004 - 2 - 3. The fact that the cheque was signed by the accused is not disputed. He appears to have the defence version that he owed an amount of Rs.20,000/- and that the complainant forcibly took away a cheque from the house where the accused then resided. He also brought on record a copy of a reply note issued by him. The courts below did not find much evidentiary value for that, because that notice was issued after the institution of the complaint. Be that as it may, in the absence of any defence evidence or cogent material in support of the version of the accused, dislodging the primary evidence on record in the form of testimony of PW1, the finding of guilt and order of conviction has, necessarily, to stand. On perusal of the entire documents, I do not find my way to hold back the finding of guilt and the order of conviction calls for any interference. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused further argued that the imposition of sentence of fifteen days simple imprisonment and compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which is the entire amount covered by the cheque even going by the complainant's version, is harsh and has been imposed only because of the order of remand in Criminal Appeal Crl.R.P.No.2278/2004 - 3 - No.193/1999, which has been misunderstood and misapplied. 5. Having considered all the aspects of the matter, I am of the view that ends of justice would be justified, if the compensation amount is increased to Rs.25,000/- and sentence is modified as to be till rising of the court for one day. In the result, the following orders are passed :- (i) The finding of guilt and order of conviction are confirmed. (ii) The sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate - III, Thrissur and confirmed by the Court of Session is vacated and the revision petitioner/accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one day till the rising of the court. (iii) The revision petitioner/accused shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Crl.R.P.No.2278/2004 - 4 - (iv) The revision petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate - III, Thrissur on 12th November, 2008 to suffer the sentence, failing which the learned Magistrate will take necessary steps in terms of Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in accordance with law. (v) This revision is allowed in part, to the aforesaid extent. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/18/9