IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 971 of 2002() ----------------------------- ST.285/1998 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD CRA.297/2000 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------- M.SUDEVAN, S/O. K.C.NARAYANA PANICKER, PEON, PALAKKAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NERAR MUNICIPAL TOWN MALL, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.CHINNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT IN APPEAL COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------- 1. ANANDAVALLI AMMA, W/O. SURENDRANATHAN NAIR, 21/731, "AISWARYA', AYODYA NAGAR, PALLIPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J ========================= Crl.R.P.No.971 of 2002 ========================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 ORDER Petitioner who has suffered concurrent order of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has preferred this revision petition challenging the above order. He has been directed by the courts below to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence. It was further directed that the entire fine amount shall be released to the complainant as compensation. 2. The case of the complainant before the trial court was that the accused had borrowed Rs.10,000/- from her and issued Ext.P1 cheque in discharge of the above debt. But the cheque was dishonoured when it was presented for encashment due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Though a statutory demand notice was issued by the complainant, the amount was not paid. 3. PWs.1 to 3 were examined on the side of the complainant. Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on her side. Ext.X1 ledger extract of the bank account had also been marked in the case. 4. The defence set up by the accused was that he had C.R.R.P.No.971/2002 2 borrowed only a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. But as rightly noticed by the courts below the accused had admitted issuance of the cheque. There was no dispute with regard to the signature also. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the materials available on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent order of conviction. However in the matter of sentence, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be shown some leniency . In lieu of the sentence of imprisonment for 15 days, petitioner shall suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court. He shall also pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation. Petitioner shall appear before the court below on August 11, 2008 and remit the above sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. If the petitioner fails to appear and remit the above sum, the sentence imposed on him by the trial court shall stand confirmed. If the petitioner has already remitted any amount against the liability, it shall be given credit. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE dvs