IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 219 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRA.544/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM CC.23/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV (MOBILE), TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- BABU THOMAS, EXECTUVE DIRECTOR, M/S A.B.M BUILDERS PVT LTD., A.B.M. TOWERS, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN 682 020. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.ZOHRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HUDCO, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, COMMERCIAL -CUM-RESIDENTAL COMPLEX, IST FLOORPATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADOCACATE MR.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SC FOR HUDCO THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, ALONG WITH CRRP. NO.220 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NOS.219/09, 220/09,221/09, 222/09,223/09 & 224/09 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated 28th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the third accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.23/2001, 24/2001, 25/2001, 5/2003, 6/2003 and 7/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Thiruvananthapuram. First respondent is a Government company and first accused a private limited company. Third accused and second accused are respectively the Director and Managing Director of the Company. Company availed a loan of Rs.One crore from first respondent agreeing to repay the same with interest. Towards repayment of the amount Exts.P1, P8, P15,P22, P29 and P36 cheques respectively for Rs.25,00,000/-, 25,00,000/-, 25,00,000/-, 25,00,000/-, 15,00,000/- and 25,00,000/- were issued drawn in the account of the company and maintained in Panavila Branch of Federal Bank. All the cheques were dishonoured. In spite of the notice issued to the accused as provided under CRL.R.P.NOS.219/09, 220/09,221/09, 222/09,223/09 & 224/09 2 Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act they did not pay. Alleging that the three accused committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act , complaints were filed which were taken cognizance by the Magistrate. All the accused pleaded not guilty. All the accused together defended the case. All of them were convicted. They together challenged the conviction and sentence before Additional Sessions court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.Nos.539/2003,540/2003, 541/2003, 542/2003, 543/2003 and 544/2003. Learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence. Accused 1 and 2 together challenged the conviction and sentence before this court in Crl.R.P.2875/2008, 2876/2008, 2881/2008, 2886/2008 2887/2008 and 2890/2008. Revision petitioner did not join the other accused while challenging the conviction in those revision petitions. As per order dated 18/11/2008 revision petitions were disposed confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as against second accused to a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default simple imprisonment for two months in each in all the cases. Third accused now filed the revision petitions challenging conviction and sentence. CRL.R.P.NOS.219/09, 220/09,221/09, 222/09,223/09 & 224/09 3 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner was kicked out of the company by the Managing Director and proceedings were initiated for realisation of the amount due from the company against the properties of the revision petitioner and in such circumstances sentence may be modified as has been done in the revision petitions filed by other accused. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent pointed out that conviction was already confirmed by this court in the revision petitions filed by the other accused and there is no reason to interfere with the conviction. 4. In view of the confirmation of the conviction and modification of the sentence as against second accused Managing Director of the company, while confirming the conviction revision petitioner is entitled to get the modification of the sentence as has been done in the other revisions filed by second accused. 5. In such circumstances, all revisions are to be allowed in part. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence as against the revision CRL.R.P.NOS.219/09, 220/09,221/09, 222/09,223/09 & 224/09 4 petitioner in all the cases is modified to a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default simple imprisonment for two months in each. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.