IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4044 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.483/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.2572/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------------- ABBAS, S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, CHEENIKKODETHERUVIL VEEDU, MELARCODE POST, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SMT.PRIYA BABU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. M. ABBAS, S/O. MEERAN SAHIB, PUTHENTHARAYIL, MALARCODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.08 , THE COURT ON 12/12/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P. No.4044 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008 ORDER The Revision Petitioner is the accused and first respondent. The complainant in S.T.No.2572/05 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur. Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl.A.No.483/06 . The learned Sessions Judge on re appreciation of the evidence confirmed the conviction. But sentence was modified to a fine of Rs.78,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for 3 months.On realisation it is directed to be paid first respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the same. 2. The learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner did not challenge the conviction in view of the concurrent findings of the fact and the evidence on record. CRRP.NO.4044/08 2 The learned counsel sought 6 months time to pay the amount. 3. On going through the judgment of the court below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.75,000/- was issued by the revision petitioner on 23.8.2005 towards repayment of the amount borrowed on 20.7.2005. It is3 also proved that, the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstances, conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act is perfectly legal. 4. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to a fine of Rs.78,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for 3 months. In such crimes sentence does not warrant CRRP.NO.4044/08 3 interference. Though learned counsel sought for 6 months time, considering the fact that cheque was issued in 2005. The petitioner is granted 4 months time to pay the fine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE sks/-