IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 200 of 2004(D) ------------------------------ CRA.262/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), ERNAKULAM CC.1566/1998 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. POTAYIL AGENCIES, EROOR NORTH,TRIPUNITHURA,REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR PRATHAP MENON. 2. PRATHAP MENON, PROPRIETOR, POTAYIL AGENCIES, EROOR NORTH, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- 1. VISHNU CEMENTS LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 39/3191, 2ND FLOOR, RAVIPURAM ROAD, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY P.V.RAJAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSMT. ANEY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C.HARI RANI, J ==== =============== Crl.R.P.No.200 OF 2004 ======================== Dated this the22nd day of March 2011 O R D E R The revision petitioners stand convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court as per judgment dated 27/02/2003 in C.C.No.1566/1998 convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced the second accused to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3)Cr.P.C. The conviction was confirmed by the appellate court and the sentence was modified by directing the second revision petitioner to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. (vide judgment dated 29/11/2003 in Crl.Appeal No.262/2003). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor is also heard. CRRP 200/2004 -2- 3. At the time of argument, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/accused that the revision petitioners are not challenging the concurrent finding of conviction entered against them by the courts below for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel also submitted that Rs.47,400/-, has been deposited already by the revision petitioners before the trial court as ordered by this Court on 21/1/2004 while suspending the sentence as per order in Crl.M.A.No.772/2004. The disputed cheque in this case is for Rs.94,800/- dated 31/1/1998. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the revision petitioners are ready to deposit Rs.60,000/- within a period of three months. 4. A concurrent finding of guilty and conviction is there against the revision petitioners by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. 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, conviction and sentence for imprisonment till rising of court do not warrant any interference and the same are confirmed. Only the amount of CRRP 200/2004 -3- Rs.1,00,000/-has been ordered as compensation by the courts below. Considering the lapse of 13 years after the issuance of cheque, I find that the compensation amount ordered by the courts below at Rs.1,00,000/- should be enhanced to Rs.1,07,400/- as agreed by the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners can be granted three months time to deposit the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- if Rs.47,400/-- is already deposited by the revision petitioners as submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months by the second revision petitioner. 5. In the result, a) This revision petition is allowed in part. b) The impugned concurrent verdict of guilty and conviction of the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are confirmed. Sentence imposed on the second revision petitioner for imprisonment till rising of court as ordered by the appellate court is also confirmed. (c) The revision petitioners are directed under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C to pay/deposit the balance amount of Rs.60,000/-if Rs.4.7,400/- is already deposited/paid as compensation and in CRRP 200/2004 -4- default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months by the second revision petitioner. The amount in deposit, if any, and the balance amount if deposited shall be released to the complainant on proper application. The petitioners shall have time till 22/6/2011 to pay/deposit the balance amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- and thus avoid the default sentence. The second petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 23/06/2011 for execution of the sentence. Sd/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE ks CRRP 200/2004 -5- 4. The disputed cheque in this case is for Rs.94,800/- dated 31/1/1998. A concurrent finding of guilty and conviction is there against the revision petitioners by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. About 12 years is already elapsed after the issuance of the disputed cheque. CRRP 200/2004 -6- CRRP 200/2004 -7- M.C.HARI RANI, J CRRP 200/2004 -8- Crl.R.P.No.504 of 2001 ORDER 17th DAY OF JUNE 2001 CRRP 200/2004 -9-