IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3680 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.115/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA ST.2570/2005 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KALPETTA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------- K.V. PRAMOD, S/O. VENKATA KRISHNAN, MATHOOR ESTATE, NADAVAYAL ROAD, PANAMARAM P.O., WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. MAMMU, THANIYATTUPARAMBATH, NEERATTADI, PANAMARAM P.O., WAYANAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 SRI.VARGHESE PREM FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3680 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.2570 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalpetta. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kalpetta in Cr. Appeal 115 of 2006. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court, in addition to a compensation for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Considering the evidence on record and concurrent findings, learned counsel did not challenge the conviction or the sentence. Learned counsel sought four months time to pay the compensation as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. CRRP3680/08 2 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the first respondent and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque, which was dishonoured when presented for encashment. Records also establish that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation of Rs.30,000/-, which was the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances sentence also does not warrant interference. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time from today to pay the compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate on 7.4.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-