IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MAY 2011 / 23RD VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1303 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- [CRL.A.NO.6/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD, CC.NO. 580/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- P.V.VALSARAJ, S/O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT SREEVALSAM, THODIKALAM, KANNAVAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.RAGHUNATH, AGED 43 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.ARUNDHATHI CHEMICALS FERTILIZER (PVT) LTD., NILESHWAR, P.O.NILESHWAR-671 314. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MEERA.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1303 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of May, 2011 ORDER In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C the petitioner who was the accused in C.C.No.580/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Hosdurg challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was ` 17809/-. The compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is ` 25,000/-. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It was concurrently held by the courts below that when the cheque in question drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant was presented for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. There was due compliance of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Admittedly the revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount on receipt of the statutory notice. The courts below have analysed the evidence let in by the CRL.R.P.No.1303/11 2 prosecution and considered the defence set up by the revision petitioner. It is seen that a careful evaluation of the entire oral and documentary evidence has been done by the courts below. Hence this Court will not be justified in interfering with the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the courts below. There is no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the conviction so recorded. Since the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay ` 25,000/- as compensation with a default sentence of simple imprisonment of one month, I think it is just and proper to modify the same. Hence in supersession of the sentence awarded by the court below the accused/revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay ` 26,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. One month time is granted to pay the compensat amount. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE acd CRL.R.P.No.1303/11 3 CRL.R.P.No.1303/11 4