IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4021 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.498/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.4209/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.V.SYEDALI, S/O.VERA ROWTHER, FAIZAL HOUSE, NOORANI POST, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.U.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. K.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.KALIYAPPA KOUNDER, DEVI DURGA NIVAS, CHUNNAMBUTHARA, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED 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 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 4021 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T. 4209 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl. Appeal 498 of 2006. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months with a direction to pay the same on realisation to first respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. The learned counsel, in view f the concurrent findings of fact and evidence on record, did not challenge the conviction, but only sought time for payment of the fine as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. CRRP4021/2008 2 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of existing liability and it 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. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to only fine and that too for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances there is no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time from today to pay the fine. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-