Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE6H DAY OF NOVEMBER201315TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2190 of 2013 ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DATED1007-2009 IN CRA442008 of ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-(AD-HOC II), KOTTAYAM. AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DATED2412-2007 IN ST9902006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM ................................................... REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.A. HAMSA FATHIMA MANZIL, KARIMBINPADI, VELOOR P.O. THIRUVATHUKKAL, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS TOWN BRANCH, SENIOR MANAGER TOWN BRANCH, KOTTAYAM - 686 001 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC, SC, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVEBANK, KOTTAYAM R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0611-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYPASSED THE FOLLOWING: DCS K.HARILAL, J.
----------------- CRL.R.P.NO.2190 OF2013------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2013 ORDER
The Revision Petitioner is the accused in ST No. 990 of 2006 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Mobile), Kottayam. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short N.I.Act) on a complaint filed by the complainant /1st respondent herein. After trial the learned Magistrate found the Revision Petitioner guilty of the said offence and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 138 f the NI Act . He was further directed to pay a 40,000/- as compensation under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. Though he had preferred a criminal appeal No. 44 of 2008 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Kottayam, the learned Sessions Judge after re- appreciating the entire evidence on record confirmed the verdict of guilty, conviction but modified the sentence. CRL.R.P.NO.2190 OF20132 The substantive sentence of imprisonment was modified to simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court and maintained the rest of the sentence as such without any interference. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence on various grounds.
2. Though this Revision Petition has been filed on various grounds challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence on merits, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that after the pronouncement of judgment in appeal, the Revision Petitioner had paid entire amount directed to be paid as fine to the complainant as compensation and at present no amount is due from him. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant also submits that the respondent has received the amount directed to paid as compensation, directly from the Revision Petitioner. In view of the payment of compensation directly the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner urged for converting the payment of fine to compensation payable directly to CRL.R.P.NO.2190 OF20133 the complainant.
3. Having regard to the fact that the dispute is settled between the parties and amount directed to be paid as compensation after remitting the same before the court as fine is paid directly to the complaint as compensation. I am inclined to convert the mode of payment specified in the impugned order under challenge.
4. In supersession of the the sentence imposed by the trial court and subsequently modified by the appellate court, the payment of compensation directly to the complainant shall be deemed to be made in compliance with the direction in the impugned order and it is made clear that the default sentence will not come into operation. What remains is the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment only. The Revision Petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court on or before 02/12/2013. This Revision Petition is allowed in part. Sd/-K.HARILAL JUDGE MJL