IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1628 of 2011() ------------------------------------------ CRA.NO.163/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-1, THALASSERY STC.NO. 6102/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------- N.V.MOOSA,S/O.LATE KUNHAMMED, AGED 42 YEARS, NADAM CASSETTES,M.M.ROAD, THALASSERY, BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)/ COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.ALI,S/O.MAMMU,PALLIYATH HOUSE, MUZHAPPILANGAD P.O.,THALASSERY-673 121 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.J.SEEMA R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1628 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July 2011 ORDER Revision is filed by the accused, who had been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act). A cheque issued by him to the 1st respondent/complainant got dishonoured and that led to his prosecution for the aforesaid offence. Conviction founded against him, on the materials placed by the complainant, passed by the learned Magistrate, after reappraisal of the evidence, has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, turning down the appeal of the accused. Sentence passed by the Magistrate, directing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, the cheque amount, was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge without any modification. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent/complainant has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. Fairly conceding that the conviction concurrently passed by the two inferior courts may not be open to challenge in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Crl.R.P No.1628/2011 - 2 - no special circumstance exist in the case warranting the imposition of substantive term of imprisonment on the offender found convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The offence covered by the aforesaid Section of the statute, it is submitted, is essentially a civil wrong for which a speedy justice is provided by prosecution of the offender. The learned counsel requests for modification of the sentence by reducing the substantive term of imprisonment. 3. Perusing the judgment rendered by both the courts and taking note of the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find that the facts in the case do not warrant incarceration of the offender for the term fixed. In modification of the sentence of imprisonment for three months, it is ordered that the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, compensation awarded is retained, with a direction that in default of payment of the compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The accused shall appear before the concerned Magistrate on 22-08-2011 to serve out the sentence as aforesaid and also to report the payment of the compensation, which is directed to be paid within the period of one month from today. In default of his appearance or failure to pay the compensation as directed within the time fixed, the learned Magistrate shall take Crl.R.P No.1628/2011 - 3 - appropriate steps to execute the sentence. Revision is disposed as above. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge