IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3875 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.468/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.714/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ALICE JOHN, CHALEKKAL HOUSE, MELUKAVU P.O., MAYAPURI JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE DAVIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V.J.JOSEKUTTY, VATTAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KONIPADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M KAMAPPU SRI.BABY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3875 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.714 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl.A.468 of 2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, in addition to a compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-, which is the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings, petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but only seeks sufficient time to pay the compensation. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the CRRP 3875/2008 2 judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner in discharge of Rs.1,20,000/-, which was borrowed earlier and 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 petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a compensation, which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted in sentence also. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the compensation as directed by Sessions Judge. Petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta on 4.3.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-