IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3873 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.41/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.344/2002 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANOJKUMAR, S/O.NANU, AGED 39 YEARS, MADOLATHIL HOUSE, NEAR KEERTHI MUDRA TALKIES, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RATHEESH BABU V.K., PUTHIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.KAMAPPU - R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3873 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 1st day of December,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.344/2002 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thalassery in Crl.A.41/2003. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the CRRP 3873/2008 2 sentence and revision petitioner may be granted three months time to pay the compensation as directed by learned Sessions Judge. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. 5. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.50,000/- was issued by the revision petitioner towards discharge of Rs.50,000/- borrowed earlier. Evidence also proved that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also proved that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 6. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a compensation which was only for the CRRP 3873/2008 3 amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstance, sentence also does not warrant interference. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the compensation as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that revision petitioner may be permitted to pay the compensation directly to the first respondent and to produce the receipt. Revision petitioner is permitted to pay the compensation directly to the first respondent and to satisfy the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that the compensation has been paid as directed. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery on 4.3.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006