IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 114 of 2004(D) ------------------------------ CRA.246/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.224/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PONNANI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- KUNHIMON, S/O. SADHU KUMAR, FAKEERAN, VALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O. PALAPETTY, PUDIYIRUTHI DESOM, AYIRUR AMSOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. PERUMBULLY FATHIMA, W/O. KORAPPANTILE MOIDU, ERAMANGALAM AMSOM & DESOM PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND R1 BY SRI. P.P.SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== Crl.R.P.No.114 of 2004 ================================== Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The revision petitioner stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, for short, referable to the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque dated 30-12-1997 for an amount of Rs.18,000/-. The version of the complainant that she had paid that amount to the accused in connection with an offer for a visa which ultimately turned futile leading to the issuance of Ext.P1 cheque, found favour with the court's view. The appellate court also noticed that the defence version before the trial court was that there were transactions in real estate. Accordingly, the appellate court found against the plea of the accused raised before the appellate court for the first time, that the cheque was not issued by him. CRRP114/2004 -:2:- 2. Having read the evidence and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner quite in extenso, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding as to guilt and also that the petitioner is liable to be convicted. 3. However, on the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that earnest efforts made to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Act turned futile and that the petitioner was willing to pay off the due compensation. It is also pointed out that the accused is entitled to a lenient view, particularly when he was prepared to pay compensation. In the result, the sentence imposed on the accused is modified to be one of confinement from the commencement of court hours till the Court rises for a day and to pay compensation of CRRP114/2004 -:3:- Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, the same being a reasonable amount, that would work out as compensation, having in view Section 80 of the Act. Such amount shall be paid within a period of two months from now. On failure to pay such compensation within the stipulated time, the petitioner shall undergo a default sentence of imprisonment of two months. Sentence and order modified accordingly and revision petition allowed to that extent. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.