IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1650 of 2006(A) -------------------------------------- CRA.227/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.1077/1999 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED. ---------------------------------------------------- MANI.K.MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, KAVAKKATTU HOUSE, NJADUPPARA P.O.URULIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): STATE. ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THRESSIAMMA JOSE, W/O.JOSEPH, PANDIYAMMACKAL HOUSE, KODUMPIDY KARA, KADANADU VILLAGE. 3. SIBY.P.JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, DO. DO. 4. SIJI THANKACHAN, D/O. DO. DO. DO. ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR FOR R2 TO 4 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON Crl. M.A. 4583 OF 2006 IN CRL.R.P. NO.1650 OF 2006 DISMISSED 3/10/08 SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. [ True Copy ] P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRIMINAL.R.P. NO. 1650 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008. O R D E R This criminal revision is preferred against the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.1077/99 and also confirmation of the said conviction and modification of the imprisonment portion from four months to one till raising of the Court. The criminal revision petition was proceeded against on a complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act on the ground that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.2 lacks and issued a cheque towards discharge of the liability which when presented for encashment returned on account of insufficiency of funds and thereafter on compliance of statutory requirements under the Act the complaint had been preferred. 2. In the trial Court PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. On appreciation of the materials the trial court found the revision petitioner guilty and convicted him but conviction was sustained by the appellate Court as well. Ext.P1 is the cheque. PW1 was examined. He Cr.R.P. 1650 OF 2006 -:2:- had proved about the factum of issuance of cheque and dishonour of cheque. Thereafter a notice was issued in the form of Ext.P4 and it was returned as unclaimed. Though PW1 has been cross-examined, it is stated that nothing is brought out to discard his evidence. During the pendency of the case the defacto complainant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The defence of the revision petitioner was that he had only borrowed a sum of Rs.21,000/- and had issued a signed blank cheque and that had been utilized for the purpose of creating the document to initiate the case. Both the Courts below on exhaustive analysis held that there is sufficient evidence to prove the issuance of cheque, the dishonour as well as the statutory compliance of the other requirements envisaged under the Act and thereafter proceeded to convict the accused and sentenced him. Therefore I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity made by the Courts below in Cr.R.P. 1650 OF 2006 -:3:- arriving at that decision. So the finding on conviction is only to be affirmed. 3. So far as the sentencing portion is concerned, the trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for four months and also to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appellate Court modified that sentence to one of imprisonment till raising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the legal representatives and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays for indulgence and request for some time to make the payment. Considering the totality I feel that the sentence requires modification and therefore I modify the sentence as one for imprisonment till raising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs and on deposit to disburse the said fine amount in favour of the legal representatives of the deceased Cr.R.P. 1650 OF 2006 -:4:- complainant. In case of default of deposit of fine amount the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The amount that is deposited at the time of admission by the revision petitioner shall be disbursed to the legal representatives of the claimant on appropriate application. The Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-