IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 428 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.415/2007 of SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), KASARGOD CC.857/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- DEVADAS P.V., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN, RESIDING AT KATTUKULANGARA, P.O. ANANDASHRAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. RAGHURAJ K.V., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. T. VASUDEVAN, RESIDING AT MUBEENA MUNEEB QUARTERS, KADIKKAL, HOSDURG VILLAGE AND TALUK, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OFKERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.428 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 4th February 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.857/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions court, Kasaragod in Crl.A.415/2007. Learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or CRRP 428/09 2 sentence and revision petitioner may be granted six months time to pay the fine. 3. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from first respondent and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also established that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstances, conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 4. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and fine, which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg on 4/8/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.