Sabu Antony vs C.D.Ponnachan
2021 Latest Caselaw 18602 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
                 CRL.REV.PET NO. 480 OF 2021
     AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.Appl. No.25/2017 DATED
    29.06.2021 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-IV, KOTTAYAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

          SABU ANTONY
          AGED 33 YEARS
          S/O THRESSIAMA, PADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          KIDANGOOR P.O.KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
          BY ADVS. SURIN GEORGE IPE
                   ADITHYA RAJEEV(K/846/2015)


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

    1     C.D.PONNACHAN
          AGED 46 YEARS
          S/O C.M. DEVASSIA, CHEROTTU HOUSE,
          ETTUMANOOR P.O.KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 631.
    2     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
          OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 031.

OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI.M.P.PRASANTH (PP)


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
HEARING   ON   08.09.2021,    THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P. No. 480 of 2021
                                         -:2:-




                                   ORDER

Dated this the 8th day of September, 2021

This revision originates from concurrent findings of guilt,

orders of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions

Judge IV, Kottayam and Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II,

Ettumanoor in Crl.A. No.25 of 2017 and S.T. No.37 of 2014

respectively. S.T. No.37 of 2014 is a prosecution under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the

N.I.Act').

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has

urged at the outset that he does not intend to argue anything on

the merits of the case, but only on the sentence imposed.

According to him, in a prosecution under Section 138 N.I. Act,

the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of

Rs.2,50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo

simple imprisonment for three months. The fine on recovery was Crl.R.P. No. 480 of 2021

also directed to be given to the complainant as compensation

under Section 357 Cr.P.C.

3. According to him, the judgment of the trial court was

assailed in appeal but the appellate court also did not interfere

with the finding on guilt of the revision petitioner on merits and

also with the sentence imposed by the trial court. Accordingly,

he urged for an interference on the substantive sentence of

imprisonment imposed by way of modification.

4. In the above circumstances, revision is allowed in part

and the sentence of simple imprisonment for three year is

modified to imprisonment till rising of the court. The revision

petitioner also seeks for six months' time for paying the fine

amount of Rs.2,50,000/- before the trial court in due

consideration of the adverse consequences impacted by the out

break of Covid-19 pandemic on the lives of people.

5. True that people are facing difficult times due to the

pandemic and therefore this Court finds it expedient in the interest

of justice to grant some time for payment of the fine amount. Crl.R.P. No. 480 of 2021

In the result, the revision petition stands allowed in part.

The imprisonment stands imposed on the revision petitioner is

modified and reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and

three months' time is granted from this day to deposit the fine

amount. Therefore, the fine amount shall be deposited on or

before 08.12.2021. In case of failure of the revision petitioner to

deposit the fine amount and undergo the imprisonment as

modified by this Court, the trial court shall be at liberty to

proceed with execution of the sentence forthwith by resorting to

coercive steps.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE.

ttb