IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2011 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1312 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- [CRL.A.NO.31/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD, CC.NO.255/2009 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTAKOYA THANGAL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KOYAKUNHI THANGAL, R/AT JISTIYA MANZIL, BAIDALAM, P.O.MANGALPADY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. H.RAMA, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) KRISHNA, (RETIRED LAB ASSISTANT), SHIVAKRIPA SHIVAPAL, NEAR KEERTHESHWAR TEMPLE, MANJESHWAR P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE- REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P. NO. 1312 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of May, 2011 O R D E R In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C the petitioner who was the accused in C.C.255/09 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was Rs.75,000/-. 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 fund. There was due compliance of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Crl.R.P. NO. 1312 OF 2011 -:2:- 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 fact concurrently recorded by the courts below. There is no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently. 4. Since the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.80,000/- as fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, no interference is called for in the matter of sentence. There is already a direction that if the fine amount is realised Rs.75,000/- shall be given to the complainant as compensation. Hence this revision petition is dismissed. Crl.R.P. NO. 1312 OF 2011 -:3:- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the amount so ordered. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine amount of Rs.80,000/-. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. ul/-