IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3495 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.145/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.257/2006 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VI, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- N.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, VASUDEVA VILASOM, AGED 49 YEARS, AMBALATHINKARA, KEZHAROOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.P.J.JOSEPH SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. M.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, AMBIKA SADANAM, T.C.63/2047, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3495 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T. 257 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The conviction was challenged before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal 145 of 2007. learned sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court in addition to a fine of Rs.60,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for four months. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel argued that Courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and on the evidence it should have been found that Ext.P1 cheque was not issued towards discharge of any legally recoverable debt and therefore the CRRP3495/08 2 conviction is not sustainable. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through the judgments of the Courts below, I cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel that evidence was not properly appreciated or appreciation of evidence was perverse. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge analyzed the evidence in the proper perspective and accepted the evidence of PW1 and found that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of an existing liability. I find no reason to differ with that finding. It is also proved that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine and that too only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, with a direction to pay that amount on realisation to first respondent as compensation under section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. I find no reason CRRP3495/08 3 to interfere with the sentence also. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner finally sought time for payment of the amount. Revision is dismissed. Petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 4.2.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-