IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2010 / 14TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 564 of 2004(A) ------------------------------------------------- CRA.17/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.379/1998 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/ACCUSED: HARIKRISHNA BHATT, AGED 32 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, KRISHNA'S FABRICATION, ANANTHAPURAM, KUMBALA, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1. VASANTHA SHETTY, S/O. RAMYA SHETTY ANANGOOR HOUSE, KASARAGOD. 2. STATE - REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.564 of 2004 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the accused, was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod in C.C.No.379/1998. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Kasaragod in Crl.A.No. 17/2001. Learned Sessions Judge, on re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of Rs.80,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of fact and the evidence on record, petitioner is not challenging the CRRP 564/04 2 conviction and the sentence be modified. 4. Evidence establish that towards repayment of Rs.1,25,000/-, borrowed by the petitioner, he issued Exhibit P1 cheque, which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when it was presented for encashment. First respondent sent Exhibit P4 notice demanding the amount covered by the dishonoured which was served on the petitioner. But, he did not pay the amount. There is no case for the petitioner that first respondent had not complied with any of the statutory formalities. In such circumstances, conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of only Rs.80,000/- though the cheque was for Rs.1,25,000/-. In such circumstances, the sentence also does not warrant any interference. CRRP 564/04 3 Revision fails and it is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to appear before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod on 21.08.2010. If petitioner has deposited any amount before Chief Judicial Magistrate pursuant to the order passed by this Court for suspending the sentence, he need deposit only the balance amount. The Magistrate is directed to execute the sentence. 5th August, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv