IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3924 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.348/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.758/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- GOPALA KRISHNAN UNNITHAN CHOPPANADU(THETTEKKADU) EAST OF THEVARUNADA TEMPLE NEERKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA-5. BY ADV. SRI.V.P.MOHAMMED NIYAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOJI JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, MADATHIL PARAMBU, PUNNAPPRA NORTH PO., ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PP SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3924 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.758 of 2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Alappuzha in Crl.A.348 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings, petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but only seeks six months time to pay the fine as directed by learned Sessions Judge. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- on 30.3.2006 in discharge of CRRP 3924/2008 2 the existing liability and the 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 N.I.Act. Conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the only question is with regard to sentence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate awarded only imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a fine, and that too for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted in sentence also. 6. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha on 5.5.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-