IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 58 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ CRA.NO.49/2007 OF SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.106/2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ........ PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------ SIVARAJAN, L.D.CLERK, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.H.BYE PASS SUB DIVISION NO.III, KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.A.RAJAN, GEETHAM, T.C.NO.18/1745, PLAVILA THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 58 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 6th day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in S.T.106/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate'S Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and a compensation of Rs.40,000/- by the learned Magistrate. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.49/2007. 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.40,000/- with a direction to pay fine on realisation to second respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision CRRP 58/2009 2 petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and he may be granted time to pay the fine. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. 5. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.40,000/- from second respondent and issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 3.1.2001 towards its repayment and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also established that second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 6. Learned Sessions Judge modified the CRRP 58/2009 3 sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a fine which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Though learned counsel sought four months time, considering the fact that the cheque was issued in 2001, revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram on 7.4.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006