IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 149 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.133/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.679/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER:APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- JOSE ANTONY, S/O. ANTONY, S.KOCHUMURIYIL HOUSE, MANIMALA P.O., VELLAVOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------- 1. RAJU KURUVILA, S/O. KURUVILA, ILLIMOOTTIL VEEDU, KIZHATHADIYOOR KARA, LALAM VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R2 SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL FOR R1 SRI.BINU PAUL FOR R1 SRI.T.V.VINU FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.149 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.679 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.45,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl. Appeal 133 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.45,000/- with a direction to pay the same on realisation as compensation to first respondent. Revision petitioner was permitted to pay that amount even directly to the first respondent and produce receipt within three months. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and the evidence on record, did not challenge the conviction but only sought time for payment of the fine. CRRP 149/2009 2 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.45,000/- and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment. Though revision petitioner had contended that Rs.15,000/- was borrowed and the cheque was issued as security, learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge on the evidence found that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards repayment of the amount borrowed and what was borrowed is Rs.45,000/-. That finding is in accordance with the evidence. It is also established that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in such circumstances is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine and that too only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, sentence also does not warrant interference. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate on 15.4.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb