IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 422 of 2004(D) ------------------------------------------ CRA.458/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC - I), ERNAKULAM CC.1271/1999 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MINI MANDIRAM, X/345, N.C.C.ROAD, AMBALAMUKKU, PEROORKKADA, TRIVANDRUM - 5. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KALAVATHY PROPRIETOR, MALABAR OPAINTS & CHEMICALS, MARADU, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, RE. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.VIJAYAKUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M.THOMBRA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2011, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 423 OF 2004 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------- Crl.R.P.Nos.422, 423, 446 & 491 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August 2011 O R D E R These four Criminal Revision Petitions were filed by the accused who was convicted by the learned Magistrate for offence punishable under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act. His conviction was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge but modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay compensation in all the four cases depending on the amount covered by the respective cheques. 2. The learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner would submit that the evidence was not properly appreciated and that there are infirmities in the findings entered by the courts below. This submission is resisted by the learned counsel for the complainant/respondents. I Crl.R.P.Nos.422, 423, 446 & 491 of 2004 -: 2 :- have gone through the judgments of the two courts below. The evidence would show that there were business transactions between the complainant and the accused and that the amounts shown in the respective cheques were to be paid by the accused when the accounts were settled between them. All the statutory formalities are seen complied with. Hence conviction in all the four cases is confirmed. 3. The learned counsel for the accused/revision petitioner would submit that the sentence may be modified. Since the learned Sessions Judge has already reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and the amount payable as compensation, no further reduction is required. In the result, these four Crl.R.Ps are dismissed. Revision petitioner will appear before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) on 17.10.2011 to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Crl.R.P.Nos.422, 423, 446 & 491 of 2004 -: 3 :- the amount of compensation as directed by the Sessions Judge in the respective criminal appeals. It is made clear that if any amount had already been deposited by the revision petitioner, only then balance amount need be deposited. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt