IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 396 of 2005(D) ------------------------------ CRA.646/2001 of CC.256/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I,KOYILANDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- SUDARSANAN, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, THIRUMANGALATH, MODAKKALLUR AMSOM, THERAYI DESOM, KOYILANDY. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.ANDIKUTTY, MADHAVI NILAYAM, ATHILI AMSOM, THORAYI DESOM P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH FOR R1 SMT.M.MANJU FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. REJI JOSEPH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ds Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 396 of 2005(D) APPENDIX PETITIONERS ANNEXURES: A1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF JUDICIAL I CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOYILANDY C.C.NO. 256/1999 DATED 8/11/1999. A2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK (ADHOC II), KOZHIKODE CRL. APPEAL NO. 646/01 DATED 25/11/2004. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. NO.396 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 256/1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Koilandy. He was prosecuted by the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After a full-fledged trial, he was found guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. He was further directed to pay ` 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only), the cheque amount, as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Criminal Appeal No. 646/2001 before the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II) to whom the appeal was made over, by the Crl.R.P.No.396/2005 -2- impugned judgment dated 25/11/2004, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition is filed. 3. Adv. Sri. A. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is not assailing conviction and further submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties. The amount due to the first respondent was paid in full. Compromise petition was also signed and handed over to him by the revision petitioner. But the learned counsel for the first respondent declined to sign the same for the reason that he was not instructed by the client. Therefore, the compromise petition could not be filed in court. The learned counsel had produced the compounding petition signed by the parties. Signature of the first respondent was seen attested by an advocate at Kozhikode. The learned counsel for the first respondent did not turn up. Therefore, the Crl.R.P.No.396/2005 -3- revision petitioner is heard. 4. I have carefully gone through the judgments of the trial Court as well as that of the Appellate Court. I find that the first respondent through his evidence with the support of Exts. P1 to P4 and X1 had succeeded to establish the existence of liability, issuance of cheque, dishonour of the same and demand for discharge of liability. I find that the conviction under challenge is based on cogent evidence and requires no interference. Regarding sentence, in the light of the payment of cheque amount and the compromise arrived between the parties, though not filed in court, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to leniency in sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of ` 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) would meet the ends of justice. 5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is Crl.R.P.No.396/2005 -4- reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of ` 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months . The revision petitioner is granted one month time to remit the fine. The revision petitioner shall appear before the trial Court for suffering sentence, failing which the trial Court shall issue steps for execution and report compliance. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. ds