IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1927 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.107/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS (FAST TRACK COURT (ADHOC)-II), TRIVANDRUM, ST.255/2005 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VIII, TRIVANDRUM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- BABU.V., S/O.VARGHESE, DEFEDAR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, TECHNOPARK BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT AKHIL NIVAS, MULLENCAZHAVILA, ELIPPOD, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. K.VINOD, A.C.VIHAR, T.C.NO.21/209 (2), KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ami/ V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1927 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused/revision petitioner, towards the discharge of a debt due to the complainant, issued a cheque dated 6.3.2002 for a sum of Rs.80,000/-, which when presented for encashment dishonoured as there was no sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused and the cheque amount was not repaid inspite of a formal demand notice and thus the revision petitioner has committed the offence punishable u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. With the above allegation, the complainant initially approached the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate- II, Trivandrum, where upon cognizance was taken and instituted Crl. R.P.No.1927 of 2010 2 S.T.No.523/04. Subsequently, the case was made over to the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Trivandrum, wherein the case was renumbered as S.T.No.255/05. During the trial of the case, PW1 was examined from the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. No evidence either oral or documentary produced from the side of the defence. On the basis of the available materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the cheque in question was issued by the revision petitioner/accused for the purpose of discharging his debt due to the complainant. Thus accordingly the court found that, the complainant has established the case against the accused/revision petitioner and consequently found that the accused is guilty and thus convicted him u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months and to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- and in default in paying the compensation revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months. In appeal, by judgment dated 13.8.2009 in Crl.A.No.107/07, the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge Crl. R.P.No.1927 of 2010 3 Fast Track (Ad hoc)-II, Trivandrum, while confirming the conviction, the sentence is modified and reduced till rising of the curt and the order to pay compensation and default sentence were confirmed. It is the above order of conviction and sentence challenged in this revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts below. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to receive the sentence and to pay compensation amount. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered favourably but subject to slight enhancement in the amount of compensation. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction, recorded by the courts below against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, Crl. R.P.No.1927 of 2010 4 while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment, as modified and ordered by the lower appellate court, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.87,500/- as compensation to the complainant u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C., within 3 months from today and in default in paying the compensation, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 6.10.2010 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. In case any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in paying the compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence awarded against the revision petitioner and for realisation of the compensation amount ordered. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/