IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 530 of 2002() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A. NO.97/2000 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM DIVISION S.T.NO. 383/97 OF THE J.F.M.C., PALA REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- M.K. NOUSHAD, AMBAZHATHINKAL, PATTIMATTAM, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. JOHNY ABRAHAM, KAMBANAL, MUTHOLY P.O., MENACHIL VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. BINDU R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV.V.KURUP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON 25.3.2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 530 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the ...th day of March, 2009 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the accused in S.T. No.383 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Palai. 2. The brief facts of the case is that, in clearance of a debt of Rs.1,85,000-, which became due on account of the purchase of rubber timber from the complainant, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for the said amount. It was presented for clearance. But the cheque was dishonoured and returned under Exts.P2 and P3 memoranda on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The complainant, therefore, intimated through Ext.P4 notice, the dishonour of Ext.P1 and also demanded the cheque amount. Ext.P6, the postal acknowledgment card, shows that he had received the same. But as the Crl.R.P.No. 530 of 2002 2 amount was not settled, the complainant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (for short 'the Act'). 3. In the trial court, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence, found the accused guilty under Section 138 of the Act and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. Against that conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl.A. No. 97 of 2000 before the Sessions Court, Kottayam, which was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Against that judgment, the accused filed this Revision Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction under Section 138 of the Act and that the only prayer is to reduce and modify the sentence. In the decision reported in George v. Kamarudeen (2007 (1) KLT 759), it was held that Crl.R.P.No. 530 of 2002 3 a substantive sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court would be sufficient in the case of offence under Section 138 of the Act to meet the ends of justice, particularly in view of the fact that adequate compensation has been awarded. In view of the principle laid down in the above decision, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met by sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and by ordering to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. 6. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is allowed in part. The conviction of the accused in S.T. 383 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Palai under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is confirmed. The sentence is modified and the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court. He is ordered to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of three months. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for five months' time to pay the compensation amount. In the facts and Crl.R.P.No. 530 of 2002 4 circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the prayer can be allowed and five months' time is granted to the accused to pay the compensation amount. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Palai is directed to execute the modified sentence. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm