IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 96 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRA.387/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.3123/2004 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, PARAPPANANGADI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- C.K. MOHANDAS, AGED 44, S/O. VELUKKUTTY, KANDARI VEEDU, THENHIPALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------- 1. E.VINEESH, AGED 28, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KARYATT VEEDU, THENHIPALAM AMSOM AND DESOM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.96 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 9th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.3123/04 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Parappanangadi. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction before Sessions court, Manjeri in Crl.A.387/07. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation of Rs.75,000/-. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel in view of the concurrent finding of fact and evidence on record submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or sentence but revision petitioner may be granted six months' time to pay the compensation as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. CRRP 96/09 2 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.75,000/- was issued by revision petitioner towards repayment of the amount borrowed earlier. Evidence also establish that Ext.P1 was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first 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 Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with sentence also. 5. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months' time to pay the compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Parappanangadi on 9/7/09. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj. CRRP 96/09 3