IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2294 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.25/2011 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA ST.12/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERT CHITS INDIA PVT. LTD., REGD. OFFICE HBS COMPLEX, 5TH FLOOR, KATTAPPANA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR JOLLY JOSEPH. BY ADVS. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ABRAHAM JOSE, MODOOR HOUSE, UDAMBANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA-685581. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R. VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMG S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2294 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently by the two inferior courts. Sentence imposed against the accused, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge turning down his appeal, is imprisonment, till the rising of the court and payment of compensation of `.59,905/-, the cheque amount, to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has filed this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the accused assailed the conviction as unsustainable under law and facts. The challenge raised by the accused, disputing the transaction relating to the cheque, according to the counsel warranted proof over the transaction from the complainant. Other than the evidence of the complainant examined as PW1 no material was produced before the court to substantiate the transaction related to the cheque, is the submission of the counsel contending that the evidence of the complainant was hardly sufficient to found a conviction against the accused. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find no merit in the Crl.R.P No.2294 OF 2011 - 2 - challenge raised by the counsel to assail the conviction, concurrently, rendered against the accused. The evidence of the complainant, who was examined as PW1, was found reliable and trust worthy to the learned Magistrate, who recorded his testimony, to conclude that Ext.P1 cheque had been issued towards discharge of a legally enforcible debt by the accused, a chitty company. The learned Sessions Judge, after reappraisal of the evidence, affirmed the conclusion so formed by the Magistrate. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this court is not expected to, and, in fact, it cannot reappreciate the evidence to examine the finding on fact entered into by the inferior court unless it is shown that such finding is perverse and unsustainable under law. No such ground has been made out in the present case. Further more, it is seen, notice issued on dishonour of the cheque after acknowledgment remained unresponded even with a reply from the accused. In such circumstances, I find, the conviction entered against the accused is unimpeachable. 4. Sentence imposed by the court is limited to punishment of imprisonment till the rising of the court and payment of compensation with default term of imprisonment. The learned counsel submitting that accused chitty company has ceased to operate business and it is in financial difficulties, sought for reasonable time to pay off the compensation. Looking into the judgment, it is seen, the chitty Crl.R.P No.2294 OF 2011 - 3 - company alone as represented by its Managing Director has been named in the complaint. It would have been appropriate if such Managing Director had been named separately as a coaccused in the case. Since the accused is a business concern, represented by such Managing Director, the imposition of default term of imprisonment in the event of nonpayment of the compensation ordered by the court is impracticable. Sentence is modified as fine of `.59,905/- which if realised shall be paid as compensation to the complainant. 5. Cheque involved in the case is dated 25-03-2009 and the sum covered by that instrument is `.59,905/-. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel, I find, some more time can be given to the revision petitioner/accused to pay the compensation awarded. 6. Conviction and sentence are affirmed. The accused shall pay the fine on or before 12-12-2011. The Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence till the date fixed as above, to enable the accused to pay the fine within such period. In the event of nonpayment of the fine, 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