IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 337 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.654/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.350/1999 of CHIEF JUDITIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- P.LAKSHMANAN, S/O.CHATHU, AGED 60 YEARS, SAVITHA QUARTERS, CHUNDANGAPOLI, KAKKARA, P.O.KADIRUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------ 1. A.P.SOOPY, S/O.KUNHAMMED KUTTY, ATTUPURATH HOUSE, KADAVATHUR P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.337 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 4th February 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.350/199 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction before Sessions court, Thalassery in Crl.A.654/2002. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- which is only Rs.10,000/- in excess of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel, in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, submitted CRRP 337/09 2 that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or sentence and he may be granted time to pay the compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with conviction or the sentence. Evidence of first respondent as PW1 establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from first respondent in February 1999 and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, when presented for encashment. It is also established that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court with a direction to pay compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-, which was only Rs.10,000/- in excess of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Cheque was issued in February 1999. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere CRRP 337/09 3 with the sentence also. 6. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery on 4/6/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.