IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4240 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.299/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.1336/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER:APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- SOMAN.K.P.S/O.PADMANABHAN, MANAGING PARTNER, PLAMPARAMBIL AGENCIES, PLAMAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUVILE MURI, NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. M.V.THOMAS, MANAGING PARTNER, AISWARYA TRADERS VAIPUR MALLAPPALLY (RESIDING AT ANNARUVELI HOUSE SASTHAMKOIL, VAIPUR) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 4240 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in C.C.1336 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl. Appeal 299 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation of Rs.74,935/-, the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque under section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and the sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of Courts below submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and he may be granted four months time to pay the compensation. 3. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I CRRP 4240/08 2 find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that towards payment of the amount due to the first respondent under Ext.P1partnership agreement, revision petitioner issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 28.6.2002 for Rs.74,935/- and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented and second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 4. Though the Magistrate awarded a sentence of simple imprisonment for three months, learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court in addition to a direction to pay compensation of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque to second respondent. In such circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 13.4.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb