IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY,21ST DAY OF MARCH 2011/30TH PHALGUNA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3175 of 2003 ------------------------------ CRA.140/2001 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT NO.I, THRISSUR CC.437/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- R. CHANDRAN, AGED 38 S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR RAMANTHARA HOUSE VAILUR ESOM, NELLAI VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUIK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. M/S. VILANGAN TRADERS, AMALA NAGAR, PUZHAKAL VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER T.F. JOSHI 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.N. SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/3//2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.R.P. NO. 3175 OF 2003 ======================= Dated this the 21st day of March 2011 ORDER The petitioner herein is the accused who was found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is challenging the concurrent finding of the courts below to that effect and also the sentence imposed on him. 2. The trial court after considering the evidence on record found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. The accused challenged the finding of conviction and sentence before the appellate court and the appellate court confirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable CRRP 3175 OF 2003 -2- Instruments Act and the sentence is modified to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. That concurrent finding of conviction and sentence has been challenged by the revision petitioner/accused before this Court in this revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 4. At the time of argument, it is submitted by both counsel that the revision petitioner herein has paid the entire amount of compensation as ordered by the courts below and that the sentence of simple imprisonment for one month awarded against the revision petitioner by the appellate court may be modified for imprisonment till rising of the court. 5. In a matter like this substantive sentence can be avoided. The complainant has already realised the amount of compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- as submitted by both counsel. In the circumstances, the sentence imposed by the appellate court against the revision petitioner for imprisonment for one month is CRRP 3175 OF 2003 -3- modified and reduced for imprisonment till rising of the court. As the amount of compensation is already paid by the revision petitioner and realised by the complainant, the revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 25/3/2011 for execution of sentence. 6. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part as above. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.