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. 823 of 2005 ----------------------------- CRA.353/2002 of SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT ( MARADU CASES), KOZHIKODE CC.603/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLNT/ACCUSED: --------------------- M.SREEDHARAN, SON OF M.UNNEERIKUTTY MANGANTHARA HOUSE, PRABHODINI NAGAR, KADALUNDI. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. K.SUDHAKARAN, SON OF K. ARUMUGHAN, KARIPPATH HOUSE, KADALUNDI, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED 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. 823 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 three months as per judgment dated 28/6/2002 in C.C.No.603/1999. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 18/12/2004 in Crl.Appeal No.353/2002. That concurrent findings of the courts below 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 first CRRP 823/2005 2 respondent/complainant. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the substantial sentence of imprisonment awarded by the courts below may be modified and reduced for imprisonment till rising of court and direction may be given to the revision petitioner to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel also seeks three months time to pay the amount. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that three months time can be given to the revision petitioner either to pay or to deposit the compensation amount which is to be enhanced than the cheque amount. The cheque was issued for Rs10,000/- and is dated 5/3/1993. More than 18 years is already over. 5. Considering the fact that about 18 years is already elapsed after the issuance of the cheque, I am inclined to enhance the amount of compensation by Rs.5,000/- more in CRRP 823/2005 3 addition to the cheque amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment/deposit within three months to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In case of any amount is in deposit, the same can be given credit towards the amount of compensation. 6. In the result, a)this revision petition is allowed in part. b)The concurrent finding of guilty and conviction of the revisions petitioner for the offence under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed and the sentence is modified for imprisonment till rising of the court. c)The revision petitioner shall pay/deposit Rs.15,000/-as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to the first respondent/complainant less the amount in deposit, if any, on or before 16/6/2011 in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. CRRP 823/2005 4 d)The first respondent is permitted to withdraw Rs.15,000/- if the same is deposited by the revision petitioner before the trial court on filing proper application. e)The revision petitioner shall appear and his sureties shall produce him before the learned Magistrate on 17/6/2011 for execution of the sentence. Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI ks. JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE