IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/ 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRRP.No. 68 of 2006 ( ) ---------------------------- CRA.155/2002 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS (ADHOC) COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.133/2001 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RANNI ------------------------------- REVISION PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCUSED : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, CHEMMARAPPALLIL HOUSE MANIMALA P.O. KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.GIRISH SRI.RENEE OONNITTAN RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS /COMPLAINANTS : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.C.CHACKO, VETTIKALAYIL HOUSE, CHATHANTHARA P.O., KOLLAMULA RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEF R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- CRRP.No. 68 of 2006 ( ) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE - A : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2004 IN O.S. NO. 119/02 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 O R D E R Challenge in the revision is against the conviction of the accused, who has been prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 {for short ‘the Act’}. Sentence imposed against the accused as modified by the Sessions Judge in appeal is imprisonment till the rising of the court, with direction to pay Rs.1,25,000/-, as compensation to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent/ complainant has entered appearance. 3. The case of the complainant that a cheque for a sum of Rs.80,000/- was issued by the accused towards the discharge of the debt Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2006 :: 2 :: arising from a loan transaction for such sum from him was found convincing and reliable to the courts below, to found a conviction against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The accused set up a defence that he had some loan transactions with the complainant, but it had been discharged substantially by part payments, and, the balance amount due was only Rs.18,000/-. To realize that amount the complainant with some of his associates forcibly obtained Ext.P1 cheque in blank form with his signature was his further case. His plea of discharge canvassing the circumstances as above, though sought to be supported by the evidence tendered by him as DW.1 and a witness examined as DW.2, after scrutiny, was found not worthy of acceptance Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2006 :: 3 :: to relieve him of the offence emanating from the dishonoured cheque which admittedly arose from his account. Both the courts below have taken note on dishonour of the cheque, a statutory notice was issued to the accused and after acknowledgement it remained without any reply from him. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the finding of guilt rendered against the accused concurrently by both the courts below. 4. Cheque amount is Rs.80,000/- and in respect of which the Sessions Judge, in appeal, has awarded compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with default term of imprisonment for six months, modifying and reducing the substantive term of imprisonment, limiting it to imprisonment till the rising of the court. There was no Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2006 :: 4 :: challenge from the complainant as against the non-awarding of compensation by the magistrate and as such what could have been granted was only the cheque amount with such modification of the substantive term of imprisonment. So much so, the compensation has to be limited to the cheque amount and the default term also has to be reduced in terms of the amount due to be paid as compensation. 5. Affirming the conviction and retaining the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court, the compensation awarded is reduced to a sum of Rs.80,000/- with default term to simple imprisonment for two months. Petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the magistrate on 30.01.2012, to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the Crl.R.P.No.68 of 2006 :: 5 :: court and to report the payment of compensation. The magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence till the date fixed as above for his appearance, to enable him to pay the compensation within such period. In default of his appearance and non-payment of the compensation, the magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.