IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1300 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.695/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.565/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.K.RAHIM, S/O.KASIM HAJI, KOOLAMTHARA HOUSE, NEAR JUMA MASJID, POST EDAKKAZHIYOOR, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.BINDHU PAULOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.K.S.RAJESH, MANAGER, PRINCE CORPORATION, WADAKANCHERRY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680503. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.CM CHARISMA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- Cr.R.P.No.1300 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of May 2011 Order In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who was the accused in CC No.565 of 2004 on the file of the JFCM, Kunnamkulam, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was Rs.31,274/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.32,000/-. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It was concurrently held by the courts below that when the cheque in question drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. There was due compliance of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to CR.RP NO.1300/2011 2 Section 138 of the Act. Admittedly, the revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount on receipt of the statutory notice. The courts below have analysed the evidence let in by the prosecution and considered the defence set up by the revision petitioner. It is seen that a careful evaluation of the entire oral and documentary evidence has been done by the courts below. Hence this Court will not be justified in interfering with the findings of facts concurrently recorded by the courts below. There is no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below. Hence conviction is confirmed. 4. Since the revision petitioner was sentenced only for one year and to pay Rs.32,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, I find no justification to interfere with the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. However, the revision petitioner is granted two months' time to deposit the amount of compensation and on failure to deposit the said amount within the aforesaid period, the learned Magistrate will execute the sentence. The revision CR.RP NO.1300/2011 3 petition is disposed of confirming the conviction and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge sta CR.RP NO.1300/2011 4