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. 3601 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.2852/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT -------------------------------------------------- M/S. DEWAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD, 2ND FLOOR, CHANDRIKA BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 11, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, P.V.POLACHEN. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.JINU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.S.MOHANAN, KANNIYADATH HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 307. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.MARTIN ROY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M KAMAPPU 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. 3601 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the complainant company and first respondent, the accused. Revision petition is filed challenging the insufficiency of the sentence awarded by Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi in C.C.2852 of 2003. Learned Magistrate convicted first respondent for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. But the sentence awarded was only imprisonment till rising of court. It is challenged in this revision petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that first respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and when the cheque is for Rs.90,000/-, learned Magistrate should not have restricted the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, and therefore the sentence is to be modified. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgment of the learned Magistrate, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence. Though the cheque was for Rs.90,245/-, which was dishonoured, learned Magistrate, on the evidence found that CRRP 3601/2008 2 first respondent had paid Rs.1,58,278/- as on 7.10.2005 proved by the evidence of DW1, the accountant of revision petitioner/complainant. It was therefore found that first respondent had paid the amount covered by the cheque, though subsequent to the commission of the offence. That was the reason for the Magistrate to award a nominal sentence and for not awarding any compensation. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence. Learned counsel submitted that if compensation is not awarded, revision petitioner be granted the liberty to realise the amount due. If, apart from the amount, which is proved to be paid by first respondent, further amount is due from first respondent, revision petitioner is entitled to realise the same by instituting a suit. Revision petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-