IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 315 of 2009 -------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.272/2007 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, MANJERI, ST.NO.336/2005 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------- KUNJHIMUHAMMED KAKODI, S/O.ABOOBACKER, KAKKODI HOUSE, VALLUVAMBRAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.KUNHALAN HAJI, POONTHOTTATHIL, FIRDOUS MAHAL, POOKOTTUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.315 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 28th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.336/2005 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri. Revision petitioner was sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction was challenged before Sessions court, Manjeri in Crl.A.272/2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re- appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Revision petitioner is challenging the conviction and sentence in this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that learned Sessions Judge did not consider the reasons stated by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for not awarding compensation and therefore sentence awarded is illegal. Learned counsel also submitted that in view of the CRRP 315/09 2 concurrent findings fact, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but he may be granted six months time to pay compensation. 4. It is not the law that when accused is convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, compensation cannot be awarded. This court in various decisions had reminded the subordinate courts to award compensation when conviction is passed for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner has already undergone a day's imprisonment and also deposited the cost and only seeks time for payment of compensation. On going through the judgments of the courts below I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence as it is perfectly legal. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.