IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3834 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.1201/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.576/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IV, NEYYATTINKARA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.SUKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, ASWATHI, T.C.NO.54/2227, NEAR NSS KARAYOGAM HALL, PAPPANAMCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. RAMESAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, DEEPA BHAVAN, PUTHICALPALVILA, THANNIMOODU P.O. TRIVANDRUM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR BY SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN FOR R2 SRI.G.S.MOHANDAS FOR R2 SRI.R.SRINATH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3834 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 26th day of November,2008 ORDER Accused in C.C.576/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Neyyattinkara is the revision petitioner. Second respondent is the complainant. Revision is filed challenging the concurrent conviction for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for seven days and a fineof Rs.2 lakhs and in default simple imprisonment for one month with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to second respondent as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and second respondent were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and he may be CRRP 3834/2008 2 granted time to pay the fine till the end of March, 2009 and the sentence may be modified. Learned counsel appearing for second respondent submitted that petitioner is not entitled to seek further time as the cheque was issued in 2004. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards the discharge of the existing liability. It is also proved that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent has complied with all the statutory formalities as 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. 5. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for seven days in addition to the fine for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Considering the facts and CRRP 3834/2008 3 circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of the court in addition to a fine of Rs.2,10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, Rs.2,05,000/-to be paid to second respondent as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is directed to pay the compensation and to appear before the Magistrate on 3.4.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006