IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 665 of 2001() ----------------------------------------- CRA.101/1999 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.254/1996 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- K.K. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KRISHNA NILAYAM, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI, SRI.V.PREMCHAND. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.M. SHAMSU, S/O.NAMBALATTAYIL MOHAMMEDALI, KATTAKAMBAL DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.T.R. RAJESH. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.665 OF 2001 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'NI Act'), concurrently, by the two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused, as modified by the learned sessions Judge in appeal, is imprisonment for two weeks and fine of `.5,000/-, with default term of simple imprisonment for a further period of one week. Out of the fine amount, if realised, `.4,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant. 2. The revision was admitted to file with direction to the petitioner/accused to take steps for issuing notice to the 1st respondent/complainant. Since service on the complainant remains incomplete, by order dated 14-08-2007 he was directed to take paper publication. Despite a subsequent order directing the petitioner to take steps for service of notice on the complainant, it has not been complied with. Challenge against his conviction for the offence arising from a dishonoured cheque on a complaint filed by the payee, the 1st respondent, is not liable to be examined on its merits without hearing the complainant giving him notice. Since the Crl. R.P No.665 OF 2001 2 petitioner/accused has not complied with the direction, taking steps for service, revision challenging the conviction deserves to be turned down. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge