IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2946 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CRA.18/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.157/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN P.B., PANANGATTIL HOUSE, PULLUR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI. RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANILESH, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, PANAT HOUSE, CHALINGAD, THRISSUR-680 631. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2946 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for the offence under section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short ‘the N.I Act’) approached this Court by preferring the above revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence, imposed as per judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 2. The case of the Ist respondent /complainant against the accused/revision petitioner is that towards the discharge of the liability due to the complainant, the accused issued a cheque dated 26.06.2000 for a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only), which when presented for encashment, was dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account maintained by the revision petitioner and the petitioner failed to pay the cheque amount, even though he was requested for the Crl. R.P. No. 2946/2010 2 same by issuing a statutory notice. With the said allegation, the complainant approached the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodungalloor whereupon S.T.No.157/2001 was instituted taking cognizance for the offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During the trial of the above case, the first respondent/complainant adduced his evidence consisting of the documentary evidence such as Exts.P1 to P6 and the oral evidence of himself as PW1. From the side of the defence, Dws 1 and 2 were examined and Ext.D1 was marked and produced. On the basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner/accused for the purpose of discharging his debt due to the complainant. Thus accordingly, the court found that, the complainant has established the case against the accused/revision petitioner and consequently, found that the accused is guilty and thus he is convicted u/s.138 of Negotiable Crl. R.P. No. 2946/2010 3 Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and also directed him to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and the default sentence is fixed as three months simple imprisonment. 3. Though an appeal was filed, against the above conviction and sentence, at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused, as per judgment dated 06.09.2010 in Crl.A..No.18/2005, the Court of Ist Addl. Sessions, Thrissur, allowed the appeal only in part and thus, while confirming the conviction and the sentence of imprisonment, the compensation amount is reduced and fixed as Rs.80,000/- to be paid to the complainant under Section 00357(3) of the Cr.P.C and the default sentence is fixed as simple imprisonment for a period of two months. It is the above conviction, sentence and direction to pay the compensation, challenged in this Crl.R.P. Crl. R.P. No. 2946/2010 4 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts below. 5. Reiterating the stand taken by the defence during the trial as well as the appellate state, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the complainant has not established the transaction, execution and issuance of the cheque. The above submission is purely on the basis of the facts, evidence and materials on record which are already considered in detail by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. The petitioner miserably failed to make out a case so as to interfere with such concurrent findings arrived on by the courts below. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the courts below is only required to be approved. I do so. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation. Having Crl. R.P. No. 2946/2010 5 regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered favourably, but subject to slight enhancement in the amount of compensation. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and the appellate court is confirmed. But the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only), which shall be paid by the revision petitioner within three months from today and in case of any default in paying the amount, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of the compensation amount, the entire amount shall be paid to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the trial Crl. R.P. No. 2946/2010 6 court on 10.01.2011 to receive the sentence and to deposit the compensation amount. In case any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court and making the deposit of compensation amount on the above date, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 10.01.2011. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ss/- //True Copy// P.A to Judge