IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 248 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRA.30/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD CC.64/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------- VASU, S/O. CHAMI, ERUMAKULAM, KOZHIPPARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANTS -------------------------- 1. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. KITTU MUTHUKAD HOUSE, KANANUR P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 248 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 21st day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.64/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.A.30/2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel, in view of the concurrent findings of courts below and the evidence on CRRP 248/2009 2 record, submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and revision petitioner may be granted time to make the payment. 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 revision petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from first respondent on 10.5.2002 and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also proved that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 6. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to compensation which was only Rs.10,000/- CRRP 248/2009 3 in excess of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad on 21.5.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006