IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1602 of 2003() ------------------------------ CRA.195/1996 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.946/1993 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- E.N.MOHANAN, ETTIKKAL HOUSE, KKARA P.O., M.M.BAZAR, MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. K.C.ASHRAF S/O. MOIDEEN, AGED 32 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, SUPREME TYRES, RESIDING AT ZUHAVAS FEE BOTH, VALAPATTANAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M NAZAR SRI.M.P.VIJAYAN FOR R2 SRI.O.C.LAIJU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 1602 OF 2003 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the complainant in C.C.946 of 1993 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Though petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thalassery in Crl.A.195 of 1996, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Ext.P1 is the dishonoured cheque. It is admittedly issued in the account maintained by revision petitioner. It was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Second respondent has complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but the sentence may be modified and petitioner may be granted time to pay the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. CRRP 1602/2003 2 4. The evidence of second respondent as PW1 with Exts.P1 to P6 establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner towards the repayment of the amount due being the value of the tire purchased by the petitioner. Evidence also establish that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent has complied with all the statutory formalities. Conviction of petitioner is perfectly legal. 5. Ext.P1 cheque is for Rs.29,250/-. Courts below sentenced petitioner to simple imprisonment for six months. Interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.32,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, Rs.31,000/- to be paid to second respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kannur on 29.12.2008. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-