IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4054 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.630/2006 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.85/2006 of JFCM – VIII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT:ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.S.SHANEY REVIDAS, WAREHOUSE MAN, KERALA STATE PRINTING DEPARTMENT, MUDRA NIRMANASALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SRI.RATHEESH.A RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MADHUSOODANAN NAIR, K.G.SADANAM, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANNTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.4054 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 15th day of December,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.85/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-VIII, Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court,Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.630/2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.2 lakhs and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it was directed to be paid to first respondent as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision is filed challenging CRRP 4054/2008 2 the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the cheque was not actually issued by the revision petitioner but her husband misused the cheque and therefore the conviction is not sustainable. But the learned counsel submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of the courts below and the evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction on merit and revision petitioner may be granted six months time to pay the fine. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. 5. Evidence establish that towards the repayment of the amount due revision petitioner issued the cheque which was dishonoured when presented for encashment and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities as provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable CRRP 4054/2008 3 Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 6. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine which was for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the fine. She is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram on 18.6.2009. sd/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- /true copy/ P.S to Judge M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006