IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2582 of 2005 ------------------------------ CRA.386/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.169/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.P.SAIDALAVI, S/O.KUNHIPOCKER, KOMENCHERI PARAMBA HOUSE, P.O.NALLALUM, CALICUT-27. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------- 1. P.P.VELAYUDHAN, S/O.CHATHU, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, BUNGLAW PARAMBA, P.O.ARTS COLLEGE, CALICUT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN FOR R1 R2 B Y PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. ANEY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J ================= Crl.R.P.No.2582 OF 2005 =================== Dated this the 1st day of April 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court as per judgment dated 26/5/2004 in C.C.No.169/2003 convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court vide judgment dated 18/7/2005 in Crl.Appeal No.386/2004. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor . 3. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the revision petitioner is not challenging the concurrent finding of guilty and CRRP 2582/2005 -2- conviction entered against him by the courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that the revision petitioner has already deposited Rs.10,000/- before the trial court as ordered by this Court on 3/2/2006 while suspending the sentence as per order in Crl.M.A.No.16862/2005 and the revision petitioner is ready to deposit the balance cheque amount. The learned counsel prays that three months time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay/deposit the balance amount. It is also prayed to modify the sentence of imprisonment for six months ordered by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court to imprisonment till rising of court. 4. The disputed cheque in this case is for Rs.40,000/- dated 25/7/2002. A concurrent finding of guilty and conviction is there against the revision petitioner by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. More than eight years is already elapsed after the issuance of the disputed cheque. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. Therefore, the verdict of guilty and conviction do not warrant any interference CRRP 2582/2005 -3- and the same is confirmed. Only the cheque amount of Rs.40,000/- has been ordered as compensation by the courts below. Considering the elapse of eight years after the issuance of cheque, I find that the compensation amount ordered by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court at Rs.40,000/- should be enhanced to Rs.45,000/-. The revision petitioner can be granted four months time to pay/deposit the total amount of Rs.45,000/- as compensation less the amount, if any, already deposited by the revision petitioner and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months is modified and reduced to imprisonment till rising of court. 5. In the result, a) This revision petition is allowed in part. b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are confirmed. (c) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of court. He is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to CRRP 2582/2005 -4- pay/deposit the total amount of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) less the amount if any already deposited as compensation within four months and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The amount in deposit, if any, and the balance amount if deposited shall be released to the complainant on proper application. The petitioner shall have time till 1/7/2011 to pay/deposit the total amount of compensation of Rs.45,000/- less the amount if any already deposited and thus avoid the default sentence. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 2/7/2011 for execution of the sentence. Sd/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE ks TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE CRRP 2582/2005 -5- CRRP 2582/2005 -6- CRRP 2582/2005 -7- M.C.HARI RANI, J Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001 ORDER CRRP 2582/2005 -8- 17th DAY OF JUNE 2001 CRRP 2582/2005 -9-