IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 26 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRA.6/2008 of Sessions court, Manjeri ST.60/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SURESH KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, KULATHINKARA PUTHEN VEETTIL HOUSE, KOTTIYOORKONAM, MALAYINKEEZHU, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.DAMODARAN PILLA, SREEVALSAM, SCHOOL ROAD, MELAKKAM, KARUVAMBRAM P.O. MANJERI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SR.C.M.NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.26 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is accused and second respondent, the complainant in S.T.60/06 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months by Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was challenged before Sessions court, Manjeri in Crl.A.6/2008. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re- appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the substantive sentence to fine of Rs.1,10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to second respondent as compensation. Revision petition is filed challenging conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel, in view of evidence on record and concurrent findings of fact submitted that CRRP 26/09 2 revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and the sentence and he may be granted time to pay the fine. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.1,10,000/- towards repayment of the amount due and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 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 only fine and that too with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to second respondent as compensation. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petition is granted four months time to the pay fine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj. CRRP 26/09 3