IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 426 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.132/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.152/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: --------------------- C.J. ELIYAMMA, W/O. T.J. SEBASTIAN, CLERK, A.E.O OFFICE, PALACE WARD, ALAPPUZHA, BY ADV. SRI.A.KRISHNAN SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. RASHEED, S/O. ABDUL REHMAN, THANSI MANZIL, ZACHARIA WARD, (FROM DEVASWOM PURAYIDOM), ALAPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.426 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 4th February 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.152/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation of Rs.65,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions court, Alappuzha in Crl.A.132/2008. Learned Sessions Judge on re- appreciation of the evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the CRRP 426/09 2 conviction but revision petitioner may be granted time to pay compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards repayment Rs.65,000/- due to first respondent. It was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also established that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstances, conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Learned Magistrate sentenced revision petitioner only to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation 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 CRRP 426/09 3 Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha on 4/7/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.