IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 11 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRA.336/2007 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ST.677/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- A.S. RAJENDRAN, M/S. RAJASREE PICTURES, NEDUMCHALIL BUILDING, MULLASSERIKANAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -11. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKLAM. 2. K.VENUGOPAL, H/NO. 23/119, KOUSTHUBHAM, CHANGAPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -33. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 11 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complaint in S.T. 677 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate -III, Kochi. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions court, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal 336 of 2007. 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.2,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to second respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel, in view of the concurrent findings of the fact and evidence on record, submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but he may be granted four months time to pay the fine. CRRP 11/2009 2 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. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards discharge of the existing liability and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also not disputed that second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. Though learned Magistrate awarded a sentence of imprisonment for three months, learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine, which was only for the amount covered by the dishonored cheque. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. There is no merit in the revision. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the fine, as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. He is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 4.5.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb