IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1568 of 2006() ---------------------------------------- CRA.5/2003 of COURT OF ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT I,PALAKKAD ST.710/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED ALIAS AHAMMED, S/O.KUNJHAPPU, MULAKKAL VEEDU, NJHANGATTIRI DESOM, THRITHALA AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANU, S/O.KAMMATHU, MULAKKAL VEEDU, PERUMUDIYUR AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, BY MUKTHIYAR AGENT ABOOBACKER, S/O LATE ANTHEEN, NARAYANATHU PARAMBIL, MARUTHUR DESOM, KODALUR DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.RAVINDRAN FOR R1 SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN FOR R1 SMT.MEENA.A. FOR R1 SMT.M.R.MINI FOR R1 SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. FOR R1 SRI.V.S.ROBIN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1568 of 2006() ORDER ON C.M. APPL. NO. 4349 OF 2006 IN CRL. R.P. NO, 1568 OF 2006. DISMISSED SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE 28.11.2008. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL. R.P.No. 1568 OF 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 ORDER This revision is preferred against the judgment in Crl. A. 5/2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Palakkad. The said appeal was preferred against S.T. 710/2000 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi. The trial court convicted the revision petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 42,000/-. The appellate court also confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is against that decision the revision petition is filed. 2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that the revision petitioner obtained an amount of Rs. 40,000/- to arrange a Visa and when he failed to arrange Visa, the complainant demanded for the amount, he issued a cheque for Rs. 40,000/- towards discharge of the liability. When the cheque was presented for encashment it was returned with an endorsement of 'insufficiency of funds'. A notice was issued for which, a reply was sent but no amount was paid. Therefore the proceedings initiated. In the trial court PW1 Crl. R.P.No. 1568/2006 -2- and DW1 were examined, P1 to P6 and D1 were marked. On analysis of the materials the court below found that the evidence of PW1 inspires confidence regarding the transaction and therefore held that the accused had executed a cheque in favour of the complainant towards the discharge of the liability and has not paid the amount. The case of the revision petitioner was relating to one Veeraraghavan and he had produced Ext. D1 regarding the same. The courts below had analysed all the materials, did not find in favour of the revision petitioner and therefore held that the case is proved. It is also seen that the complaint has been filed in time and all the statutory requirements are also complied with. There is no perversity, illegality or irregularity committed by the court below in arriving at a decision and therefore I do not propose to interfere with the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial court has convicted the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 42,000/-. If really he desires to pay the amount, I do not want to send him to jail. Therefore I am inclined to modify the sentence by reducing the sentence of imprisonment for one day that is till the rising of the Crl. R.P.No. 1568/2006 -3- court and convert the compensation to that of fine with default sentence. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as follows: 1. Conviction under section 138 is sustained. 2. The sentence is modified and the revision petitioner is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one day, that is till the rising of the court and pay a fine of Rs. 42,000/-, which on realisation shall be disbursed to the complaint and in default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six weeks. 3. The revision petitioner shall present himself before the trial court to receive the sentence and pay the fine on 06.2.2009, failing which the trial court shall execute the sentence. 4. The amount which is deposited as compensation shall be treated as part of the fine and balance need be deposited. The amount shall be disbursed to the complainant on proper application. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm