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. 64 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRA.670/2007 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), KOZHIKODE ST.648/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER:APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- PRAKASH BABU, S/O.SANKUNNI.A., SATHYA PRAKASH HOUSE, KOLATHARA PO., KUNDAYITHODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENTS:RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------- 1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO(P) LTD. GOKULAM TOWERS, NO.66, ARCOT ROAD, CHENNAI, REP. BY ITS LEGAL ASSISTANT SAVITHA K.V., W/O.K.V.THYAGARAJ, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TECHNO TOP BUILDING, VAIKOM MUHAMMED BASHEER ROAD, KOZHIKODE 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. 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 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 64 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.648 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kozhikode. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kozhikode in Crl. Appeal 670 of 2007. 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. In view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and he may be granted six months time to pay the amount as directed by the Courts below. 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. CRRP 64/2009 2 Evidence establish that towards the repayment of Rs.92,400/- due to first respondent in a chitty transaction Eaxt.P2 cheque was issued for Rs.92,400/- 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 Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. The Courts below sentenced revision petitioner only to imprisonment till rising of Court in addition to compensation which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances no interference in the sentence is also warranted. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation as directed by the Magistrate. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 9.6.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb