IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 518 of 2002() ----------------------------- ST.200/1998 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA CRA.192/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- VIJAYAN, THEKKEKARUKAYIL, POLLATHAI P.O., MARARIKULAM SOUTH, S.L. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. SASIKUMAR, MANNEZHATH VEEDU, NORTH ARYAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.3392/02 IN CRL.R.P.NO.518/02 DISMISSED. 7.4.2009 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.518 OF 2002 (A) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 O R D E R Challenge in the revision is against the concurrent verdict of guilty passed against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I.Act'. The learned Magistrate, after trial, found him guilty, convicted him of the offence, sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence without any modification. Questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that despite issuing registered notice to his party the appellant, he has not turned up. It is submitted that CRL.R.P.518/2002 2 the revision petitioner/accused had already produced a stamped document evidencing that a composition had been arrived at with the complainant by paying the amount covered by the cheque, the dishonour of which led to prosecution ending in his conviction. Perusing the records of the case, it is seen the respondent/complainant had been duly served, but he has not entered appearance. Without hearing the respondent/complainant, it is not proper for this court to enter any finding on the composition, which is alleged to have been entered into between the parties. Composition arrived by the parties, without the juncture of the court while the revision is pending for consideration cannot be accepted without any enquiry. In view of the absence of the respondent, an enquiry into the matter is also not possible. Since the revision is admitted and taken on file, it has to be disposed of on merits, and I proceed to do so. 3. Though several grounds are urged in the memorandum of revision in view of the composition, which is stated to have been effected and, further, no instruction had CRL.R.P.518/2002 3 been given by the party, the appellant, to his counsel despite issue of notice, the learned counsel did not urge any of the grounds to impeach the conviction. Perusing the judgments of both the courts below and also records of the case, I find that the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is fully supported by legal evidence tendered in the case. With regard to the sentence imposed, having regard to the nature of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, I find that incarceration of the revision petitioner/accused for a term is not necessary to meet the ends of justice. So much so, the sentence imposed against the accused is modified, directing him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant under Section 357 (3) of the Cr.P.C. within two months from the date of this order. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Payment, if any, made by the accused by way of composition with the complainant, if found acceptable, shall be given credit to in the compensation ordered. The accused shall appear and his CRL.R.P.518/2002 4 sureties to produce him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alappuzha, on 1st July 2009, and the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence as directed. Revision is partly allowed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.518 OF 2002 (A) --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 7th April, 2009