IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 932 of 2005 ----------------------------- CRA.46/1998 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.253/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- KUMAR, S/O. SREEDHARA PANICKER, T.C.10/1759, PAZHAVILA VEEDU, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ANTONY NADAR AUGUSTIN, THOTTATHUKEEZHE PUTHEN VEEDU, KARUMATHOOR DESOM, PARASSALA. ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE FOR R2 by PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. ANEY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.R.P. NO. 932 OF 2005 ======================= Dated this the 16th day of March 2011 ORDER This revision petition is filed by the accused against the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months as per judgment dated 16/1/1998 in C.C.No.253/1996. The appellate court confirmed the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the sentence was modified and reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (vide judgment dated 31/1/2005 in Crl.Appeal No.46/1998). In default of payment of compensation, the revision petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment CRRP 932/2005 -2- for three months. That finding is challenged by the revision petitioner/accused in this revision petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent/complainant. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is not challenging the concurrent finding of guilty and conviction against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays four months time to pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as ordered by the appellate court. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that no interference is required in this revision petition against the finding of guilty and conviction found against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 4. In the result, a)this revision petition is allowed in part. b) The sentence ordered against the revision petitioner till rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- CRRP 932/2005 -3- (Rupees two lakhs) to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months as ordered by the appellate court is also confirmed. c)The revision petitioner is given time till 18/7/2011 either to pay/deposit the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, less the amount if any already deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court as ordered by this Court while suspending the sentence dated 6/4/2005 in Crl.M.A.No.4624/2005, with default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. d) The amount, if any, in deposit and the balance amount of compensation, if realised, can be released to the second respondent/complainant on filing proper application. e)The revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 19/7/2011 for execution of the sentence. Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI ks. JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE