IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 73 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRA.231/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA ST.408/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NEDUMKANDOM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS:APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- ABDUL SALIM , S/O.MEERASA, KARIMPANACKAL HOUSE, KALLAR PO, MUNDIYERUMA. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.JOSEMON SRI.C.M.TOMY RESPONDENTS:/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------- 1. T.K.THOMAS @ REJI, S/O.UTHUPPU THEKKEL VEEDU, CHOTTUPURA PO, THOKKUPALAM KARA KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 73 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.408 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumkandam. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Crl. Appeal 231 of 2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.40,000/- which is to be paid to first respondent as compensation. Petitioner is challenging the conviction and the sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of fact and the evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence, but he may be granted two months time to pay the fine as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. On going through the judgments of the Courts below I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. The judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge shows that revision CRRP 73/2009 2 petitioner did not challenge the conviction before the Appellate Court and only sought modification of the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. The fine on realisation was directed to be paid to first respondent as compensation. In such circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner may be permitted to pay the fine which is directed to be paid to first respondent as compensation directly to first respondent. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is permitted to pay the fine, which was directed to be paid to first respondent as compensation under section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, directly to first respondent and produce receipt before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumkandam at the time of his appearance and establish that the fine, which is to be paid as compensation to first respondent, was paid as directed. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 10.3.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb