IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2288 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.416/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.1570/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER (APPELLANT - ACCUSED) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V.V.JOSE, S/O.V.A.VAREED, VEMBIL HOUSE, KUZHOOR P.O., KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: (RESPONDENT - COMPLAINANT) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2288 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10 th day of July, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner, who was the accused in C.C.No.1570 of 2001 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Kollam, has been concurrently convicted of an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC for having issued to PW1 Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.60,000/- on 23.3.2000, by which time he had already closed the account with the drawee bank and when the cheque was presented before the drawee bank it was dishonoured for the reason that the account was closed. The courts below imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and on default to pay the fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. It is the said conviction and sentence which are assailed in this revision. 2. In as much as the conviction has been recorded after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction which is accordingly confirmed. Crl.R.P.No.2288 of 2008 2 3. What now survives for consideration is the question regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the revision petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration for the said conviction. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner is set aside and instead he is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/-( Rupees sixty thousand only) as compensation to PW1, the de facto complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. On failure to pay the compensation, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months by way of default sentence. The petitioner shall deposit the compensation amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) before the trial court within four months from today. In the result, this Revision is disposed of confirming the conviction entered but modifying the sentence imposed as above. Dated this the 10 th day of July, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj