IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3780 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.489/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.3389/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- VASU , S/O. CHAMI, AGED 46 YEARS, ERUMAKULAM, KOZHIPPARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. SURESH BABU, S/O. KANNAPPA MANNADIYAR, SWAPANA READYMADE, COURT ROAD, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3780 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.3389 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.Appeal 489 of 2006. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to fine of Rs.75,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month, with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel did not challenge the conviction and sought only time for payment of fine. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was CRRP3780/08 2 issued as a postdated cheque towards payment of the amount due. Evidence also establish 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 Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. 4. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to only fine with a direction to pay the fine on realisation, as compensation, to first respondent. The fine awarded is only the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances the sentence also does not warrant interference. Revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted six months time from today to pay the fine. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-