IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1661 of 2006() ------------------------------ CRA.295/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.59/2003 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMESWARA SHARMA, CHENNAMANGALATHU ILLAM, IRINGALAKUDA.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.SURESHKUMAR, CHARANACKAL HOUSE, THAZHAM P.O., MALAYALAPUZHA, REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.N.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, CHARANCKAL HOUSE, THAZHAM.P.O., MALAYALAPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19 /1 /2009 THE COURT ON 19/01/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.1661 OF 2006 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.No.59/2003 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs.2,15,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for six months with a direction to pay Rs.2,00,000/- out of the fine realised as compensation to first respondent. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.295/2004. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision CRRP 1661/2006 2 petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record he is not challenging the conviction but the sentence may be modified. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. 5. Evidence establish that towards discharge of liability of Rs.2,00,000/- revision petitioner issued Ext.P2 cheque which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. Evidence also establish 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced the revision petitioner only to fine with a direction to pay the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque on realisation as compensation. In addition to the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque revision petitioner was directed CRRP 1661/2006 3 to pay an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- as fine. Considering all the relevant aspects, interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is reduced to Rs.2,05,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Revision petitioner is sentenced to a fine of Rs.2,05,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months. On realisation of fine, Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid to first respondent as compensation under section 357 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Though learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner sought time for payment, revision was filed in 2006 and he had already availed of three years. In such circumstance, revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner need only deposit the balance amount deducting the amount if any deposited in the case earlier, as directed by the appellate court or this court. First CRRP 1661/2006 4 respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount, if any in deposit. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006