IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 118 of 2004(D) ------------------------------ CRA.106/2002 OF III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.769/2000 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- K.V.SREEVALSALAN, S/O.VASU PANICKAR, KUNNATHULLY HOUSE, PADIYAM, KADADASSANKADAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.TOMY P.T. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. BHOOPARBHA FINANCE, BYJU ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, BINOY C.PAPPACHAN, S/O.PAPPACHAN, KUNNAMKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALAA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.118 of 2004-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008. O R D E R 1.The revision petitioner stands convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days and to pay compensation of Rs.52,836/- to the complainant, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by the trial court. The appeal filed by him has been dismissed by the Court of Session. 2.The Courts below have concurrently found that the accused issued Ext.P3 cheque dated 11-5-2000 in the name of the complainant in discharge of outstandings on account of defaulted instalments under a hire purchase scheme and further that the evidence of P.W.1 that the complainant had CRRP118/2004 -: 2 :- defaulted payment of the amounts due from the 16th instalment under the hire purchase transaction was true. Correction was found in the pass book Ext.D2 and Ext.D1 series receipts which were produced on the side of the accused. Even going by those documents, the court below was satisfied that the transaction pleaded was genuine; the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of a debt; the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds on presentation and the accused failed to pay on being notified of the dishonour. On the basis of the materials on record, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned orders. The conviction, therefore, stands. I may also notice that Ground G among the grounds raised in the revision is that apart from the other legal grounds raised, the parties are likely to settle the matter and the accused would pay off the complainant in 45 days from the filing of the revision which was in 2004. With the passage of time, it is reported by the complainant that there was no such settlement and CRRP118/2004 -: 3 :- no amount was paid at all. 3.Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, in modification of the sentence imposed by the courts below, it is ordered that: i.The revision is allowed in part. ii.The finding of guilt and the conviction are confirmed. iii.The sentence imposed by the courts below on the revision petitioner is vacated. In supersession thereof, the revision petitioner/accused is sentenced: (a)to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court, for a day; and (b)to pay fine of Rs.55,000/-, in default of which, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 20 days. Any amount already CRRP118/2004 -: 4 :- deposited in terms of the interim orders will be given due credit to against the fine. iv.The fine, if paid or realized, shall be treated as compensation payable to the complainant and shall be released accordingly. The learned Magistrate shall take necessary steps for execution of the modified sentence hereby imposed. The revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the court below on 3-9-2008 to suffer the sentence. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate shall take necessary action against the revision petitioner and his sureties under Section 446 Crl.P.C., if he does not appear as directed above. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/290708