IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4238 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.336/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.925/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- C.K.SOMANATHAN, CHOORAKKODU HOUSE, OMALLOOR P.O., PUTHENPEEDIKA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. DILEEPKHAN, CHUTTIPARA VADAKKECHARUVIL, KULASEKHAPATHY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 4238 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.925 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl. Appeal 336 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation of Rs.75,000/-, the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel 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 and he may be granted time to pay the compensation as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. CRRP 4238/2008 2 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that towards discharge of the existing liability revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.74,000/-, and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also not disputed that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the Court, in addition to the compensation, for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the compensation as directed by the Sessions Judge. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta on 6.5.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb