IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 948 of 2002 ----------------------------- CRA.108/2002 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.419/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMABALAPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.HARSHAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, HARSHIMA VEEDU, KOMANA MURI, AMBALAPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. M.V.RAMESH KUMAR, MALIMEL VEEDU, OTHARA MURI, ERAVIPERUR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. ANEY PAUL ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.R.P.NO. 948 OF 2002 ======================= Dated this the 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2011 ORDER This Crl.revision petition is filed on 26-7-2002 by the convicted accused. As per judgment dated 9/4/2002 in C.C.No.419/1998, the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted him thereunder. The accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The accused preferred appeal and the appellate court as per judgment dated 20/7/2002 confirmed the conviction of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and allowed the appeal in part. The sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for nine months and directed the accused to pay Rs.six lakhs to the first respondent/complainant as compensation with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. This has been challenged by the accused before this Court by filing this revision CRRP 948/2002 -2- petition. 2. This Crl. revision petition was filed on 26/7/2002. The revision petitioner died pending this revision petition on 17/6/2004 and a memo to that effect has been filed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The death of the revision petitioner/accused in C.C.No.419/1998 is recorded. Thereafter, this case has been posted on several dates for taking steps by the complainant/first respondent. No steps have been taken so far either by the complainant or by the legal representative of the deceased convicted accused to get themselves impleaded in this revision petition. 3. I have perused the records and also the impugned judgments of the courts below to examine the correctness and legality of the finding of conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner and convinced that it is perfectly legal and no interference is required with the same. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the appellate court are confirmed. But on the death of the convicted person/revision petitioner, the question of his serving his sentence of imprisonment, does not arise. But the sentence to pay Rs.6 lakhs to the first CRRP 948/2002 -3- respondent/complainant as compensation is well-founded in law and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. In the result, this revision petition is closed. The complainant/first respondent, if interested, can realise compensation amount from the assets of the deceased/accused, if any, in the hands of his legal representatives by taking appropriate steps. Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE