IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3827 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.196/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.176/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- JOY M.A., S/O. LATE ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT USHAS, NEAR RAILWAY GAGE, PADANAKKAD, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, P.O. PADANKKAD. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERAL, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SEBSTIAN CYRIAC, S/O. KURIAN, KANNANTHANAM HOUSE, PANATHUR, PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O. PANATHUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMAPPU FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 3827 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 26th day of November,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in C.C.176/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Kasaragod in Crl.A.196/2007. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and a compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence and the findings of the courts below, CRRP3827/2008 2 petitioner is not challenging the conviction but he may be granted six months time to pay the amount as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. 5. Though petitioner raised a contention that Ext.P1 cheque was issued as a security for a loan of Rs.40,000/- which was subsequently discharged, learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of evidence disbelieved that case and accepted the evidence of PW1 that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards repayment of Rs.1,40,000/- borrowed by the revision petitioner. Nothing was pointed out to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 with regard to the borrowal of Rs.1,40,000/- or issuance of Ext.P1 cheque by the revision petitioner to discharge that debt. Evidence also establish that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and under Ext.P4 notice served on CRRP3827/2008 3 the revision petitioner second respondent has complied with all statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 6. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, in addition to a direction to pay compensation for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In the circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Petitioner is granted six months time to pay the amount as directed by the Sessions Judge. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 28.5.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- CRRP3827/2008 4 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006