Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL FRIDAY,THE20H DAY OF DECEMBER201329TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2475 of 2013 () -------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN CRL.A.NO. 1019/2005 OF VI ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED89/2006) CC.NO. 800/2002 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -I, ALUVA ------------------------------------- REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SRI.SIDHARTHAN K.P., S/O.PADMMNABHAN, AGED54YEARS, KOOVAPILLIL HOUSE, AROOR.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.BINNI RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT : --------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. SIXAM CHITS PVT. LTD., NEREVEETTIL BUILDINGS, VAZHAKKALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.XAVIER-682 030. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2012-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts K.HARILAL, J.
----------------- CRL.R.P.NO.2475 OF2013------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2013 ORDER
The revision petitioner is the accused in CC No.800 of 2012 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on a complaint filed by the 2nd 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 a period six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- and in default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months. Feeling aggrieved though he had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1019 of 2005 before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, the learned Sessions Judge also CRL.R.P.NO.2475 OF20132 confirmed the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence as such without any interference. This revision petition is filed challenging concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.
2. Though this revision petition has been filed on various grounds, assailing the verdict of guilty on merits the counsel for the revision petitioner submits that after the pronouncement of the impugned judgment in appeal the revision petitioner had paid the entire amount directed to be paid as compensation to the 2nd respondent/complainant and now no amount is due from him to the complainant. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant Sri.James Abraham submits that the 2nd respondent has received the entire amount directed to be paid as compensation in compliance with the impugned judgment under challenge. In view of the subsequent payment of compensation the learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged to modifying the substantive sentence CRL.R.P.NO.2475 OF20133 of imprisonment also.
3. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and also the subsequent payment of compensation as ordered by the court below, I am inclined to reduce the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment to simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court. In supersession of the sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court the revision petitioner is convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court only. It is made clear that the default sentence will not come into operation. The revision petitioner shall appear before the trial court to suffer substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one day till rising of the court on or before 20/01/2014. Sd/-K.HARILAL JUDGE MJL