IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 785 of 2000() ----------------------------- CRA.326/1999 of V ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.514/1998 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- NAZAR, PARTNER, ELITE ELECTRONICS ELITE CORNER, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KELTRON REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER, AREA SALES OFFICE, KELTRON, ARCHANA, 43/2337, SASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, COCHIN - 4. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE\ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMAPPU SRI.M.C.JOHN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P.NO. 785/2000 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO. 4197/2000 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 785/2000 DISMISSED. SD/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE 29/09/2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm CRL.R.P.NO. 785/2000 ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO. 1973/2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO. 785/2000 DISMISSED. SD/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE 29/09/2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL.R.P.No. 785 of 2000 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 O R D E R Heard both sides. Perused the records. 2. Revision petitioner stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-. He preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed. Hence this Revision. 3. Case of first respondent who is a dealer of electronic items is that revision petitioner purchased such items it and for the sum of Rs.46,432/- due to it, issued a cheque dated 11/09/1997 which was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Revision petitioner was informed about the dishonour and he was called upon to make payment, but that was not done. PW1, Area Manger of first respondent gave evidence regarding the transaction and execution of the cheque. Contention raised by revision petitioner is that some of the electronic items supplied to him by first respondent were defective, he requested first respondent to take it back and settled the account, but CRL.R.P.No. 785/2000 2 that was not done. It is contended by learned counsel that the cheque was given only as security. 4. The transaction between revision petitioner and first respondent is practically admitted by the former, his case being that goods supplied by first respondent were defective. But, there is no evidence in that line. Evidence is only one way, that revision petitioner issued the cheque for discharge of the debt. In the light of that evidence, concurrent finding of fact entered by the court below is justified and no interference is required with the conviction of the revision petitioner. 5. Learned counsel submitted that sentence awarded is excessive and requested for leniency. He also requested four months time to pay the amount. Counsel for first respondent submitted that first respondent is a Government undertaking and that amount was due as on 11/09/1997. It is also submitted by learned counsel that revision petitioner is still engaged in the business. 6. Considering the nature of the offence involved and the object of legislation, I am inclined to think that simple imprisonment CRL.R.P.No. 785/2000 3 till the rising of the court is sufficient in the ends of justice. At the same time, loss caused to the first respondent which is a Government undertaking on account of non-payment of the amount at the appropriate time has to be taken into account. Revision petitioner successfully delayed payment of amount for the last 11 years. Considering the loss caused to the first respondent and also taking into account that it is not as if revision petitioner is penniless, he has to pay compensation of Rs.55,000/- to the first respondent. Resultantly, revision petition is allowed in part in the following lines. 1. Substantive sentence awarded to revision petitioner is modified as simple imprisonment till the rising of the court. 2. Revision petitioner is directed to deposit in the trial court for payment to the first respondent by way of compensation Rs.55,000/- (Rupees fifty five thousand only) within three months from this day failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 3. Amount if any deposited by revision petitioner in the trial court CRL.R.P.No. 785/2000 4 will be adjusted in the compensation fixed hereby. 4. Revision petitioner shall surrender in the trial court on 31/12/2008 to receive the sentence. Bail bond is cancelled. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm