IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1007 of 2002() ------------------------------ ST.2767/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD CRA.209/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- KRISHNAN S/O.KESAVAN, RESIDING AT PULINELLI KOTTAYI,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SMT.M.R.VALSA SMT.RANJINI.M.PONNACHAN RESPONDENTS: NOT PARTY/RESPONDENT & NOT PARTY/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. RADHAKRISHNAN S/O.THEYYAN, RESIDING AT KARIPPAYI VEEDU, KANJIKODE, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.1007 of 2002 ========================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 ORDER Petitioner who was concurrently found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial court as well as the Appellate Court, has preferred this revision petition challenging the above order of conviction and sentence. Petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant/respondent No.2 before the trial court was that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.69,000/- from him. The accused had issued Ext.P1 cheque dated August 23, 1999 in discharge of the said debt. But the cheque was dishonoured when it was presented for encashment due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Though a statutory demand notice was issued by the complainant, the accused did not bother to discharge the debt, nor did he send any reply. 3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the manager of the Bank was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P4 were C.R.R.P.No.1007/2002 2 also marked on his side. The accused got himself examined as DW1 and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on his side. 4. The defence set up by the accused was that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from M/s. Ooty Holdings (Pvt.) Ltd. on December 13, 1994. He was paid Rs.19,000/- and Ext.D1 receipt was also issued. According to the accused he had handed over a blank paper with his signature on the revenue stamp. He had also issued a blank cheque which has now been produced as Ext.P1 after inserting an inflated figure. The further contention raised by the accused was that the complainant was one of the four “partners” of the company mentioned above. He had also pressed into service Exts.D2 and D3 communications received by him from the company. Anyhow, the trial court found that the accused had totally failed to substantiate any of the contentions raised by him. The learned Sessions Judge who had re-evaluated the oral and documentary evidence on record, concurred with the findings entered by the trial court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the materials available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction passed by the court below. However, learned counsel submits C.R.R.P.No.1007/2002 3 that the petitioner is prepared to pay off the entire liability covered under the cheque, if he is given a reasonable opportunity to do so. The limited prayer is to set aside the sentence of imprisonment. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that petitioner can be given an opportunity to discharge the liability. 6. Therefore in modification of the order passed by the trial court, it is directed that the petitioner shall suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court and pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on August 14, 2008, and deposit the compensation on that day. On his appearance the learned Magistrate shall ensure that the petitioner undergoes imprisonment till the rising of the court. If the petitioner fails to appear and remit the sum as indicated above, the sentence imposed on him by the appellate court shall stand confirmed. The criminal revision petition is disposed of as above. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs