IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3829 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.87/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD ST.5857/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.K.SASI, S/O.KUMARAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, PURAMADATHIL HOUSE, VELLINEZHI P.O PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. SANKARA NARAYANAN, S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA, SREEJA NIVAS, KALLADIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.Revision Petition No. 3829 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision Petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.No.5857/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad. Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months in addition to a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction and sentence were challenged before Additional Sessions Court-III, Palakkad in Criminal Appeal No.87/2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with a direction that on Crl.R.P.No.3829/2008 - 2 - realization of fine, it is to be paid to the first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Cr.P.C. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that, in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of facts, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction. But revision petitioner may be granted six months' time to pay the fine. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Exhibit P1 cheque towards repayment of Rs.2,50,000/-, borrowed earlier. Evidence also establish that the cheque was dishonoured for want of Crl.R.P.No.3829/2008 - 3 - sufficient funds and in spite of demand in writing for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, petitioner did not pay. Evidence also establish that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then, the question for consideration is whether sentence is reasonable. 5. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence only to a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- with a direction to pay the same as compensation to the first respondent. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for sentence of fine, which could be double the amount covered by the Crl.R.P.No.3829/2008 - 4 - dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petitioner is granted six months' time to pay the fine. Sd/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE skr // True copy // P.A. to Judge.