IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 359 of 2004(D) ------------------------------ CRA.514/2002 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.343/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- M.N.KUNJUMON, MECHERIL HOUSE, NATTAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. SHAJI V.S., MALAYIL HOUSE, THIRUVATHUKAL, KOTTAYAM WEST P.O., KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. ANEY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J ============== Crl.R.P.No.359 of 2004 =================== Dated this the 29th day of March 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court as per judgment dated 20th November 2002 in C.C.No.343/2002 convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.90,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It was also ordered to give Rs.87,000/- out of the fine amount to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1)Cr.P.C. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 22/10/2003 in Crl.Appeal No. 514/2002. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor is also heard. 3. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused that the revision CRL.RP 359/2004 2 petitioner is not challenging the concurrent finding of conviction entered against him by the courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision petitioner is ready to deposit the cheque amount within four months. It is prayed that the order of the courts below to pay a fine of Rs.90,000/- may be set aside. It is also prayed to modify the sentence of simple imprisonment for three months to imprisonment till rising of court. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the cheque was for Rs.85,000/-dated 20/12/1999 and considering the elapse of 11 years after the issuance of the cheque, the amount of compensation may be enhanced and two months time may be given to the revision petitioner to pay/deposit the amount. 5. A concurrent finding of guilty and conviction is there against the revision petitioner by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. About 11 years is already elapsed after the issuance of the disputed cheque. In the absence of challenge on any specific grounds, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail. Therefore the verdict of guilty and conviction do not warrant any interference and the same is CRL.RP 359/2004 3 confirmed. The courts below ordered to pay a fine of Rs.90,000/- and out of which Rs.87,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that it is justifiable to direct the revision petitioner to pay Rs.95,000/-to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and three months time can be granted to him to deposit the entire amount of Rs.95,000/- as compensation less the amount if any already deposited by the revision petitioner and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Sentence of simple imprisonment for three months ordered by both courts is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and the order of the courts below to pay the fine of Rs.90,000/- is set aside. 6. In the result, a) This revision petition is allowed in part. b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are confirmed. (c) But the sentence imposed is modified and reduced. In supersession of the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising CRL.RP 359/2004 4 of court. He is further directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay/deposit the amount of Rs.95,000/- (Rupees ninety five thousand only) as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The amount in deposit, if any, and the balance amount if deposited shall be released to the complainant on proper application. The petitioner shall have time till 29/6/2011 to pay/deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.95,000/- and thus avoid the default sentence. The petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 30/06/2011 for execution of the sentence. The order of the courts below to pay the fine of Rs.90,000/- is set aside. Sd/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE ks CRL.RP 359/2004 5 CRL.RP 359/2004 6 CRL.RP 359/2004 7 M.C.HARI RANI, J Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001 ORDER CRL.RP 359/2004 8 17th DAY OF JUNE 2001 CRL.RP 359/2004 9