IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1088 of 2001() ------------------------------ CRA.211/1995 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.740/1993 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVISIOIN PETITIONER(S): (APPELLANT/ACCUSED): ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.G.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SAJI NIVAS, PEDIKULAM, PULIMATH PO, KARETTE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MADHAVAN PILLAI SREEKANTAN NAIR, MATHIRAKUZHI VEEDU, KOTTIYODU, ATTINGAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1088 OF 2001 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November 2011 ORDER Challenge in the revision is against the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'NI Act'), concurrently by the two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused is rigorous imprisonment for three months with direction to pay fine of `.1,000/- with default term of rigorous imprisonment for one month, as affirmed by the learned sessions Judge while turning down the appeal of the accused. 2. When the revision came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused pleaded for modification of the sentence imposed by the courts below limiting it to payment of fine of the cheque amount with default term of imprisonment. No challenge against the conviction of the accused, which has been concurrently upheld by the two courts below, is canvassed for. Perusing the judgments rendered by the courts below with reference to the submissions made by the counsel, I find, the request made for modification of the sentence imposed against the accused deserves consideration. Crl.R.P No.1088 OF 2001 2 3. Cheque amount involved in the case is `.20,000/-. Prosecution of the accused over the dishonoured cheque commenced as early in 1993. Taking into account that circumstance also, I find, sentence imposed against the accused can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay compensation of `.30,000/- to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for one month. 4. Affirming the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, sentence imposed against him is modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay compensation of `.30,000/- with the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner shall appear before the magistrate on 20-12-2011 to serve out the imprisonment and to report the payment of the compensation. Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence imposed against the accused till the date fixed as above for his appearance. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation within the time stipulated, the magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge