IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 320 of 2002() ----------------------------- CRA.349/1999 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE CC.431/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.K.SURENDRAN, S/O.CHOYI, "SOUHRADAYA", THAYYIL MEETHAL HOUSE, P.O.ONCHIYAM. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.M.PREMAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, THAZHEMOTTEMMAL HOUSE, MUTTUNGAL AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAI GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.2331/2002 IN CRRP.NO.320/2002 DISMISSED 20/02/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.320 of 2002 - B ----------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused, as concurrently found by the trial court and the appellate court, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Sentence imposed by the trial court for such offence was simple imprisonment for three months and it was confirmed by the appellate court. Questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner confined his submission solely for modification of the sentence submitting that conviction entered is supported by the materials produced, and it is unassailable. Accused is prepared to pay the cheque amount i.e., Rs.30,000/- within the time fixed by the court is the submission of the counsel to seek indulgence for interfering with the sentence. The transaction involved in the case had taken Crl.R.P.No.320 of 2002 - B 2 place in the year 1996 and, at this stage, after a span of 13 years, payment of the cheque amount alone cannot be considered as a sufficient ground for interfering with the sentence. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances involved, I find that sentence of imprisonment for a day and ordering compensation of Rs.50,000/- invoking the powers under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure with a default term of simple imprisonment for three months would suffice ends of justice. 3. In the result, upholding the conviction, the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused is modified directing him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, within two months from the date of this order. In default of payment of compensation as ordered, the revision petitioner/accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 4. Compensation, if realised, shall be paid to the complainant. The revision petitioner/accused shall appear and Crl.R.P.No.320 of 2002 - B 3 his sureties shall produce him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara on 4.5.2009, who shall execute the sentence as directed. This criminal revision petition is partly allowed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-