IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1813 of 2003(C) ------------------------------- CRA.161/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.261/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT IN CRL.A.NO.161/2002/ ACCUSED IN CC NO.261/2001: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ GETHA.S.NAIR, W/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, FLAT NO.B-7, IN AISA APAR5TMENT, ULLOOR LANE, NEAR D.P.I. JUNCTION, JAGATHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION. BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SRI.C.S.DIAS, SRI.MANU V. 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENTS IN CRL.A.NO.161/2002/ COMPLAINANT CC.NO.261/2001 AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. N.G.BIJU S/O. GOPALAN, KATTILPARAMBIL VEEDU, KEEZHUKUNNU BHAGOM, MUTTAMBALAM KARA, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010 ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 1814 OF 2003, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.7600/2003 IN CRRP.NO.1813/2003 DISMISSED 23/07/2010 SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ======================== Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.1813 & 1814 OF 2003 ==================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010. O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant. First respondent lodged a complaint taken cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as C.C.No.260 of 2001 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam, contending that Ext.P1 cheque therein was issued by the petitioner towards repayment of Rs.90,000/- on 14.10.1999. The cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. The petitioner was asked to pay the amount by notice. Though he received the notice has failed to pay. Petitioner thereby committed the offence. First respondent lodged another complaint contending that petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 15.10.1999 for Rs.90,000/- towards repayment of the amount borrowed and when that cheque was dishonoured notice was sent demanding the said amount. The petitioner on receipt of the notice failed to pay the amount and thereby committed Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.1813 & 1814/2003 2 the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as C.C.No.261 of 2001. Both the cases were separately tried. The learned Magistrate on the evidence of the first respondent as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months directing that on realisation of fine Rs.70,000/- is to be paid to the first respondent as compensation. In C.C.No.260 of 2001, also petitioner was convicted and was awarded the very same sentence. Petitioner challenged the conviction in C.C.No.260 of 2001 before Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Criminal Appeal No.162 of 2002. The conviction in C.C.No.261 of 2001 was challenged in Criminal appeal.No.161 of 2002. First respondent filed Crl.R.P.No.18 of 2002 and 19 of 2003 challenging the inadequacy of the sentence. The learned Sessions Judge heard the appeals and the revisions together and by separate judgments dismissed the appeals and revisions and confirmed the Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.1813 & 1814/2003 3 conviction and the sentence. Crl.R.P.1813 of 2003 is filed challenging the conviction in C.C.No.261 of 2001 as confirmed in Criminal Appeal.No.161 of 2002. Crl.R.P.No.1814 of 2003 was filed against the conviction and sentence in C.C.No.261 of 2001 as confirmed in Criminal Appeal.No.162 of 2002. As the contentions raised is the same and parties are also same, both the revisions are heard together. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the evidence and the concurrent finding of fact petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence. It was submitted that as directed by this Court, half of the fine amount in each of the cases has already been deposited before the learned Magistrate and it may be provided that the said amount may be adjusted towards the fine, which is to be paid. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the evidence I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. The conviction and the sentence are perfectly Crl.Rev.Pet.Nos.1813 & 1814/2003 4 legal and regular. The revisions are therefore dismissed. It is made clear that if revision petitioner has deposited any amount before the learned Magistrate, as directed by this Court, he shall deposit only the balance of the fine. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court , Kottayam is directed to execute the sentence. First respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount in deposit if any towards the compensation as provided in the judgment. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. mns