IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2751 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.421/2008 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, PALAKKAD ST.3760/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- P.P. SAJEEV, S/O.PAPPUKUTTY, AGED 48 YEARS, VADAMA, KOTTAMURI, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI, SMT.ANILA GEORGE. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M. SULAIMAN, S/O.S.M. HUSSAIN, SANTHI NAGAR, YAKKARA, PALAKKAD, PRESENT ADDRESS AS M. SULAIMAN, C/O.SHAIK MOHAMMED, AISWARYA MEDICALS, P.O. KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.T.R. RAJESH. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2751 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.N. VELAYUDHAN. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2751 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November 2011 ORDER The 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. Sentence imposed against the accused as affirmed by the learned sessions Judge in appeal, is simple imprisonment for one month with direction to pay the cheque amount, a sum of `.24,000/- to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for one month more. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that there is no challenge against the conviction, but, only as against the substantive term of imprisonment seeking its modification. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the two courts below, I find, no special circumstance has been made out in the case justifying the imposition of a harsh punishment directing the incarceration of the accused for the term fixed, on his conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Sentence imposed against him can be modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation awarded with default term. Crl. R.P No.2751 OF 2011 2 4. Affirming the conviction, sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation with default term of imprisonment fixed by the courts below. Petitioner shall appear before the magistrate on 17-12-2011 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 disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to judge