IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3906 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.275/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.324/2006 of jUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------ P. MADHUSOODHANAN, T.C 13/2358, SWATHI LANE, KANNAMMOOLA.P.O, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. K. DILEEP KUMAR, GAYATHRI, T.C. 76/2340, OOLENKUZHI, ANAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2- BY PP - SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3906 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T. 324 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.275 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, and a fine of Rs.35,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one month with a direction to pay the fine on realisation as compensation to first respondent. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of fact and evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but he may be granted time to pay the fine. 3. 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 Crrp 3906/2008 2 borrowed Rs.35,000/- from first respondent and towards its repayment, issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.35,000/- on 19.12.2001 and that 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 revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. He is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 20.2.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-