IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4138 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.633/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-III, THALASSERY CC.31/2001 of CHIEF JUDITIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ APPELLANTS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- K.MUHAMMED, S/O.C.H.MOIDEEN HAJI, MUHARAS, CHEMBILODE AMSOM, MOWENCHERRY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. P.K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, S/O.KUNHAPPA NAIR, (RETD. SENIOR PERSONNEL OFFICER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION), MOKERI AMSOM, KADEPURAM DESOM (DIED). 2. M.P.NALINI, W/O.P.K.PADMAMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS, PADMAALAYAM, P.O.MUNDALORE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. RAJASREE BHASKARAN, AGED 37 YEARS, PADMAALAYAM, P.O.MUNDALORE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. RAKESH PADMANABHAN, AGED 35 YEARS, PADMAALAYAM, P.O.MUNDALORE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.4138 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 9th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.31/2001 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. Respondents 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased first respondent impleaded before the Sessions court. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction before Sessions court, Thalassery in Crl.A.633/2002. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to fine of Rs.2,60,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for six months with a direction to pay Rs.2,50,000/- out of the fine realised, as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code to legal heirs of deceased complainant who are respondents 2 to 4. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. CRRP 4232/08 2 3. Learned counsel in view of concurrent findings of fact and the evidence on record submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but revision petitioner may be permitted to pay portion of fine, which is to be paid to first respondent as compensation, directly and produced receipt before Chief Judicial Magistrate and remit the balance of fine before the Magistrate and six months' time may be granted 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 modified sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from deceased first respondent and towards its repayment with interest, issued Ext.P1 cheque which was dishonoured when presented for encashment through the account maintained by first respondent and first respondent had complied with all the 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 fine only. That too for the amount covered CRRP 4232/08 3 by the dishonoured cheque with a direction to pay Rs.2,50,000/- out of fine realised to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. But in view of the submission made by learned counsel that revision petitioner may be permitted to pay portion of the fine, which is to be paid to the legal heirs of first respondent as compensation he is permitted to pay that amount directly to them. Revision petitioner is also granted six months time to pay the fine as sought for. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. But it is made clear that revision petitioner is entitled to pay 2,50,000/-, being part of fine which is directed to be paid to respondents 2 to 4 the legal heirs of deceased complainant as compensation, directly to them and produce receipt before Chief Judicial Magistrate and to deposit the balance of fine within six months from today. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.