IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 120 of 2004() --------------------------------------- CRA.274/2002 of IIIRD ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.350/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------ MANOHARAN P.K., S/O. KUMARAN, PAMBUMGATTIL HOUSE, PALLISSERY, P.O.ARATTUPUZHA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.V.TEKCHAND RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SUDHAKARAN S/O. PUTHUMADAM GANGADHARAN, P.O.KARUVANNUR, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl. R.P No.120 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'NI Act'), concurrently, by the two courts below. Service of notice on the 1st respondent/ complainant has not been effected so far as there is default on the part of the revision petitioner/accused to take proper steps thereof. 2. When the revision came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction, but, only seeks modification of the sentence, which includes for substantive term of simple imprisonment for one month. Taking note of the submissions made by the counsel, I find, no further notice to the complainant is warranted, and it is dispensed with. Perusing the judgments rendered by both the courts below, I find, conviction of the accused/petitioner is well founded and it is fully supported by legal evidence. No further dilation over the conviction is needed as there is no challenge thereto. So far as the request made by the counsel for modification of the substantive term of imprisonment imposed as Crl. R.P No.120 OF 2004 2 part of the sentence, I find, it can be modified and reduced as imprisonment till the rising of the court retaining the compensation awarded with the default term of imprisonment provided. 3. Affirming the conviction, sentence imposed against the accused is modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the sum fixed as compensation with the default term of simple imprisonment for the period awarded by the sessions judge. Petitioner is directed to appear before the magistrate on 12-12-2011 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the compensation. The magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above for his appearance, to enable him to pay the compensation within such period. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, the magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge