IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4101 of 2008() ------------------------------ S.C.524/2006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, CHERTHALA. CRA.A.NO.260/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA. REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- C.H.HANEEF THURKKY, 4/592, CHELIPARAMPU, KOMPARAMUKKU, KOCHI-2. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. HAMSATHU, THEKKEVELIYIL, VETTACKAL P.O., CHERTHALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.4101 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 18th day of December,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in C.C.524/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Alappuzha in Crl.A.260/2008. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRRP 4101/2008 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and he may be granted time to pay the fine. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. 5. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also proved that second 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 Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 6. Then the only question is regarding the CRRP 4101/2008 3 sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a fine and that too for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted five months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Cherthala on 19.5.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006