The court confirmed the conviction under Section 138, but modified the sentence due to the existence of a concurrent civil suit for the same compensation.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the Revision petitioner by the trial court and the appellate court. The Revision petitioner is the accused in CC No.693/1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam. It is a prosecution initiated against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). The learned Magistrate after a full fledged trial found that the petitioner is guilty under of the NI Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. In default of payment of the compensation amount, the petitioner was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the revision petitioner filed Crl. Appeal No.247/2003 before the Additional District Court-II, Kollam. The appellate court, after re-appreciating the evidence, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the conviction and sentence invoking the powers of revisional jurisdiction is very limited. Unless there is illegality, irregularity and impropriety, this Court need not interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the appellate court. This Court anxiously considered the impugned judgments and the contentions of the Revision petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed on the petitioner. The trial court and the appellate court considered the entire evidence and thereafter found that the petitioner was guilty under Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction imposed under of the NI Act.

4. As far as sentence is concerned, the sentence is already modified by the Sessions Court, and the sentence remains is to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, after setting aside the compensation amount awarded because the respondent had already filed a civil suit for the realization of money.

5. This Court perused the impugned judgments. Admittedly, it is a money transaction which led to the prosecution. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the substantive sentence of imprisonment is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Simply because a money suit is pending, the appellate court ought not have set aside the compensation awarded by the trial court. Therefore, the substantive sentence can be reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation amount imposed by the trial court. The amount already deposited, if any, will be adjusted towards the compensation amount. If any decree is obtained by the complainant from the civil court, the compensation, if paid can be adjusted from the decree amount.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner is undergoing sentence in jail. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are about 7 cases registered against the petitioner and unless the petitioner came out from jail, he may not be able to pay the compensation. He prayed one year time to pay the compensation. The counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent also has no objection in granting such a prayer. I think, that prayer can be allowed.

Therefore, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part