IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 5 of 2009() --------------------------- CRA.340/2005 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.3220/2002 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- KANNETH KUNHIMUHAMMED, S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, KANNETH HOUSE, CHEROOR POST, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.T.HAMSA, S/O.C.T.MUHAMMED, A.H.AUTO CONSULTANT, OOTY ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 5 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in S.T. 3220 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Perinthalmanna. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation of Rs.34,000/- for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Manjeri in Crl. Appeal 340 of 2005. Learned Additional sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner, in view of the concurrent findings of the fact and the evidence on record, did not challenge the conviction, but sought time for payment of the compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. CRRP 5/2009 2 Though petitioner raised a contention that Ext.P1 cheque was issued as a security at the time of purchasing a jeep, which was subsequently taken away by second respondent and DW1 was examined to prove that fact, learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge disbelieved that case and accepted the case of second respondent that revision petitioner had borrowed Rs.34,000/- and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque. On the evidence I find no reason to interfere with the said factual finding. Evidence establish that the cheque was dishonored and second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. Learned Magistrate awarded only a sentence of imprisonment till rising of Court and compensation, that too for the amount covered by the dishonored cheque. In such circumstances the sentence also does not warrant interference. There is no merit in the revision. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 3.4.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb