IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4223 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.926/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.551/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-III, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER - APPELLANT - ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- S.K.THANKARAJ, S/O.SIMON, SOWBHAGYA, MELECHERUKARA ROAD, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.KUTTAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS - COMPLAINANT AND STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.MILAN, PUTHEN BUNGLOW, CHULLIMANOOR P.O., NEDUMANGAD. 2. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.4223 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 1st day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.551/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Nedumangad. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.926/2007. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months. On realisation of fine it was directed to be paid to first respondent as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. CRRP 4223/2008 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel in view of the concurrent findings of fact and the evidence on record did not challenge the conviction or the sentence and only sought four months time to pay the fine as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. 5. Evidence on record establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards discharge of existing liability and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities as provided under sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. CRRP 4223/2008 3 6. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a fine which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque with a default sentence and with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the fine as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate on 2.5.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006