IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1294 of 2011 ------------------------------ ST NO. 1640/2008 ON THE FILE OF JFCM-II, KOTTAYAM ................ REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------- P.J.JOSEPH,S/O.LATE P.M.JOSEPH,AGED 48, PUNNATHANATH HOUSE, POOVATHODU P.O, BHARANGANAM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.V.ZACHARIAN,KOLATHUPARAMBIL,5C CENTURY TOWERS, M.C ROAD, KOTTAYAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No. 1294 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of May,2011 O R D E R In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C the petitioner who was the accused in S.T. No.1640/2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottayam, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was 'Rs.1,36,000/-'. The fine ordered by the lower appellate court is 'Rs.91,000/-'. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It was concurrently held by the courts below that when the cheque in question drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. There was due compliance of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Crl.R.P. No. 1294 of 2011 -:2:- Admittedly the revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount on receipt of the statutory notice. The courts below have analysed the evidence let in by the prosecution and considered the defence set up by the revision petitioner. Since the revision petitioner was sentenced only to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay 'Rs.91,000/-' as fine and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, I find no justification to interfere with the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. However, the revision petitioner is granted four months' time to deposit the amount of compensation and on failure to deposit the said mount within the aforesaid period, the learned Magistrate will execute the sentence. The revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ttb