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. 4034 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.166/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.1049/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SHAJI, S/O.KUTTY, AGED 34 YEARS VELLOORKARA HOUSE,MEVELLOOR KARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SHAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.K.RAJENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PLANTHODATHIL HOUSE IRUMPAYAM P.O.,VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PP SRI AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 4034 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.1049 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl.A.166 of 2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, and a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. On realisation of fine, it was directed to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, petitioner is not challenging the conviction or sentence, but only seeks three months time to pay the fine. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the CRRP 4034/2008 2 judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner for Rs.30,000/- towards repayment of the amount borrowed earlier. Though revision petitioner contended that he had borrowed only Rs.9000/-. But there is no evidence even to probabilise that case. Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge, on proper appreciation of evidence found that case of revision petitioner that it was Rs.9000/- which was borrowed and not Rs.30,000/- is not correct. I find no reason to interfere with that factual finding. Evidence also establish that the cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also proved that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and fine, that too, only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque with a direction to pay the same on realisation as compensation to first respondent. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with sentence also. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted CRRP 4034/2008 3 three months time to pay the compensation as directed by Sessions Judge. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 18.3.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-