IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3920 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.101/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.119/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SWARNALATHA GANGAYAN,W/O.GANGEYAN PROPRIETRIX SURG CHEME KADAPPULLY HOUSE, TANIAM DESOM, VADAKKUMURI PO., THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.KOVILAKAM CHITS AND FINANCIAL C SERVICES P LTD., REP. BY CHAIRMAN K.K.ANILKUMAR S/O.KARUNAKARAN,KARAYATTU HOUSE KUNDALIYOOR DESOM, ENGANDIYOOR CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PP SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3920 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.119 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.A.101 of 2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings, petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but only seeks sufficient time to pay the compensation. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the CRRP 3920/2008 2 conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P6 cheque was issued by revision petitioner in discharge of the liability and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. Learned Magistrate awarded only a sentence of imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/-. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted in sentence also. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. On the submission of learned counsel, petitioner is granted five months time to pay the compensation as directed by Sessions Judge. Petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur on 6.5.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-