IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3804 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.515/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM CC.171/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, ETTUMANUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ROY CHERIYAN, THAZHATHUKARIPALIL, PAMPADY P.O. KUTTICKAL, KALLEPPURATHU. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. MATHEW.M.VETTIKKATTU, VETTIKKATTU HOUSE NEENDOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AMJAD ALI SRI.M.J.THOMAS FOR R.1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3804 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.171 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl.A.515 of 2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, maintaining the compensation of Rs.90,000/- awarded by learned Magistrate. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and first respondent were heard. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, petitioner is not challenging the conviction or sentence, but only seeks three months time to pay the compensation. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Courts below appreciated the evidence in the CRRP 3804/2008 2 proper perspective and found that Ext. P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of Rs.90,000/- which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also proved that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation, which was also only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the compensation as directed by Sessions Judge. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 16.3.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-