IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 385 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.7/2008 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA ST.616/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NEDUMKANDOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- K.D.AUGUSTHY,KIZHAKKEDATHU VEEDU, PUSHPPAKKANDOM KARA, PARATHODU VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU MR.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------ 1. ABDULKARIM, S/O.HASSAN RAWTHER, MARUTHANIYIL HOUSE, MUNDIYERUMA KARA, PARATHODU VILLAGE,UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.385 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T. 616 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumkandam. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thodupzha. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court maintaining the compensation. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. In view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence but revision petitioner may be granted six months time to pay the compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, CRRP 385/2009 2 I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.75,000/- from first respondent and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque which 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. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court maintaining the compensation, which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted five months time to pay the compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumkandam on 2.7.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb