IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 518 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.116/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.442/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- VIKRAMAN NAIR, AZHAKATHU VEEDU, ARUVAPPULAM, KONNY. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SIVASANKARAN NAIR, CHERUVILA PUTHENVEEDU ELAPPUPARA (V.KOTTAYAM), PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 518 of 2009 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 12-02-2009 ORDER In this revision filed under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in C.C. No.442 of 2004 on the file of the J.F.C.M.II, Pathanathitta challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the courts below concurrently for an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. 2. The case of the complainant can be summarised as follows:- On 2-11-2001 the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant and in discharge of the said liability the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing the date 13-11-2001 for the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- drawn on the Konni branch of the Federal Bank. At the time of issuing the cheque , the accused made the complainant believe that the cheque was drawn on the account maintained Crl.r.P. 518 of 2009 -:2:- by the accused with the drawee bank referred to above. The complainant sent the cheque for collection through the Mallasseri branch of the S.B.T. The cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. Eventhough the complainant initially prosecuted the accused for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act by filing C.C. 118 of 2002 before the trial court, it was revealed during the trial of that case that the cheque was not drawn on an account maintained by the accused with the drawee bank. Accordingly, the said complaint was got withdrawn and the present complaint was filed. 3. Both the courts have accepted the aforesaid case of the complainant after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the form of P.Ws 1 to 3 and Exts.P1 to P9. There is little scope of interference with the conviction recorded by the courts below. The conviction of the revision petitioner under Sec. 420 I.P.C. is accordingly confirmed. 4. What now survives for consideration is the Crl.r.P. 518 of 2009 -:3:- adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed on the revision petitioner. The trial court imposed a substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs. 65,000/- as compensation for the said conviction. The lower appellate court confirmed the said sentence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner deserves penal servitude by way of incarceration, particularly, when he is a first offender and no other case is stated to be registered against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that interests of justice will be adequately met by modifying the sentence. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the courts below for the conviction under Sec. 420 I.P.C is set aside and instead, the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs. 70,000/- under Sec. 357 (3) Cr.P.C of which Rs. 65,000/- shall be paid to P.W.1 the complainant and the balance of Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the Government. Crl.r.P. 518 of 2009 -:4:- The petitioner is given two month' time to deposit the compensation amount before the trial court. Warrants if, any pending against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for two months. This Revision Petition is accordingly, disposed of. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ ani.