IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2798 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- CRA.280/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-I, PALAKKAD ST.2038/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- C.S. RAMADAS, S/O.SWAMINATHAN, AGED 51 YEARS, CHILAMBATHU HOUSE, KARIPPODE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. J. SHOUKKATHALI, S/O.JABBAR, AGED 41YEARS, MOOPPERTHERUVU, THATHAMANGALAM ,CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, 678 101. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.C.M. CHARISMA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2798 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 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 borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- and towards the discharge of the said liability, the accused issued a cheque dated 27.3.2007 for a sum of Rs.35,000/-, 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 said allegation, the complainant approached the Judl. First Class Magistrate Court- Chittur, by filing a formal complaint, upon which cognizance was 2 Crl. R.P.No.2798 of 2010 taken u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and instituted S.T.No.2038/07. During the trial of the case, PW1, the complainant himself was examined from the side of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked. No evidence either oral or documentary adduced 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 3 months and also ordered the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C., failing which the revision petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. 3 Crl. R.P.No.2798 of 2010 3. Though an appeal was filed, at the instance of the revision petitioner/accused, by judgment dated 10.8.2010 in Crl.A.280/09, the Court of Sessions Judge, Palakkad, allowed the appeal only in part and thus while confirming the conviction, the sentence imposed against the accused by the trial court is modified and reduced and in suppression of the sentence imposed, the appellate court sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.36,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. It is also ordered that on realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.35,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts below. 5. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction recorded by the courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the revision petitioner require 4 Crl. R.P.No.2798 of 2010 some breathing time to pay the fine amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered favourably. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, while maintaining the order of sentence as modified and imposed by the appellate court to pay, the fine of Rs.36,000/- and compensation to the complainant, out of the fine amount, the revision petitioner is granted 3 months time to pay the fine amount and it is made clear that the default sentence fixed by the appellate court will attract only in case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in depositing the fine amount, within the above extended period. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount on or before 23.12.2010. In case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in paying the fine amount, the trial court is free to take 5 Crl. R.P.No.2798 of 2010 coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence awarded against the revision petitioner. The execution of warrant if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 23.12.2010. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/