IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3792 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.69/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KASARAGOD CC.336/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- P.SHRIDHARA RAO, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SHIVANNA, PANIYA HOUSE, PANOOR P.O., KARADKA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------- 1. M.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.F.MUTHU NAIR, CHERANNIAL HOUSE, PANOOR P.O., KARADHA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3792 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C. 336 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kasaragod in Crl. Appeal 69 of 2004. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation of Rs.82,000/-. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or sentence and revision petitioner may be granted six months time to pay the compensation. An endorsement was also made in the revision petition to that effect. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through the judgments of the Courts below I find no reason to interfere CRRP3792/08 2 with the conviction and sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards the discharge of a legally recoverable debt. It is also proved that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent has complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the petitioner is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court in addition to a compensation of Rs.82,000/-. The cheque is also only for Rs.82,000/-. In such circumstances no interference in the sentence is also warranted. Revision is dismissed. Petitioner is granted six months time from today to pay the compensation. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 25.5.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-