IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4230 of 2008() ---------------------------------------------- CRA.693/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.222/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ JOSEPH, AGED 55, S/O.THOMAS. KIZHAKKEMADAYIL HOUSE, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, THEKKENADA P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------- 1. PADMA KUMAR, S/O.SIVARAMA PANICKER, SARASWATHY BHAVAN, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, NEAR KACHERIKVALA, VAIKOM P.O. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 4230 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 21st day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.222/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Addl.Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl.A.693/2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a compensation for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision CRRP 4230/2008 2 petitioner, in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but because of his financial conditions five months time may be granted to pay the compensation. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner had borrowed Rs.60,000/- from first respondent for the treatment of his wife who subsequently died due to cancer and in such circumstance, leniency may be shown. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. 5. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.60,000/- from first respondent and issued Ext.P1 cheque. When presented for encashment Ext.P1 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 Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the CRRP 4230/2008 3 revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 6. Learned Addl.Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to compensation which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted five months time to pay compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom on 22.6.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006