IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3385 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.676/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.116/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT X, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................................... REVISION PETITIONER: APPELLANT:ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ R. PADMAKUMAR, S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN NAIR, T.C 29/381, BHAJAN PURA LANE, KATHAMUKKU, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:COMPLAINANT AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. B. SURESH, S/O. BALAN, NEYYANAMMOOLA PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, KATTAYIKONAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3385 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ORDER Petitioner was concurrently convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. First respondent is the complainant. Case of first respondent is that petitioner borrowed Rs.80,000/- and towards its discharge, issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 17.9.2001 drawn in his account and maintained in Kowdiar branch of State Bank of Travancore. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. First respondent sent Ext.P3 notice demanding the amount covered by the cheque. It was returned unclaimed. Petitioner did not pay the amount and thereby committed offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 2. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Learned Magistrate, on the evidence of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P7, and petitioner as DW1, found him guilty and convicted and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months, and a fine of Rs.80,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for a period of two months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal CRRP 3385/2008 2 Procedure. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.676 of 2006. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.80,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation, it was directed to be paid to first respondent as compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that he is not challenging the conviction or sentence but because of financial difficulties, he may be granted three months time to pay the fine amount. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I do not find any illegality in the conviction or sentence. Courts below found that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards the discharge of existing liability and when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent has complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Therefore conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act, is perfectly legal and proper. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to CRRP 3385/2008 3 imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a fine, which is for the amount covered by the cheque with a default sentence and to pay the fine, which on realisation is to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted in the sentence also. But on the submission of learned counsel, petitioner is granted three months time from today to pay the fine and to appear before learned Magistrate as directed by learned Sessions Judge. 5. Revision is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to appear before learned Magistrate on the expiry of three months from today. Petitioner is granted three months time from today to pay the fine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-