Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 25TH MAGHA, 1944 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/4/2017 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.78/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II, ALAPPUZHA, WHICH CONFIRMED CONVICTION, SENTENCE AN DIRECTION TO PAY COMPENSATION IN CC 120/2013 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 05/03/2016 REVISION PETITIONER/S: ROOPA VINOD AGED 34 YEARS AGED 34 YEARS, W/O.VINOD, VINAYA NIVAS, WEST OF MADACKAL, KURUPPAMKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688539. BY ADVS. J.OM PRAKASH V.S.RAJAN RESPONDENT/S:
1 R.ANIL KUMAR AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, ADHITHYA, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031. BY ADV R.AZAD BABU OTHER PRESENT: pp M.C.ASHI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2023 The petitioner is the accused in CC No.120/2013 of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The case originated on a complaint filed by the 1 st respondent against the petitioner, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 1st respondent alleged that the petitioner had borrowed amounts from him and had issued cheque for Rs.1,55,000/- towards discharge of the liability. The cheque, on presentation, was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Despite issuing notice demanding payment of the amount, the petitioner failed to respond. The trial court after appreciation of evidence and consideration of the legal contentions, found the petitioner guilty and thereupon convicted and sentenced him to undergo
simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- to the 1st respondent under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Although petitioner preferred an appeal, the same was dismissed, confirming the sentence and conviction imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved this revision petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised various
contentions in an attempt to assail the findings of the courts below. Having carefully gone through the judgments of the trial and appellate courts and having heard the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, I am unable to find any serious infirmity warranting interference with the concurrent findings, in exercise of the revisional power vested with this court. At this point, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that atleast, the sentence of imprisonment ought to be reduced and a reasonable time granted for paying the compensation.
3. The offence under Section 138 being quasi civil in
nature, I find the request for reduction of sentence and extension of time for payment of compensation to be reasonable. In the result, the criminal revision petition is allowed in part by confirming the conviction and reducing sentence of imprisonment to imprisonment for one day, till the rising of the court. The petitioner is granted six months time for paying the compensation as directed by the trial court. In default of payment, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The petitioner shall pay / remit the compensation amount and appear before the trial court for undergoing the reduced sentence within the six month period. In view of the extension granted, execution of the warrant, if any pending against the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance for six months. Sd/- V.G ARUN JUDGE SJ