IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3428 of 2008() ----------------------------------------- CRA.98/2006 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.2411/2001 of ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- K.M.JOSEPH, S/O.MATHAI, AGED 58 YEARS, KORAMANGALAM HOUSE, MARADU.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.PREMCHAND RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.J.BABU,POLAYIL HOUSE, NORTH FORT GATE, TRIPUNITHURA (LATE). 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. SEENA, W/O.LATE.J.BABU, AGED 42 YEARS, POLAYIL HOUSE, NORTH FORT GATE, TRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM. 4. NIMMI, D/O.LATE.J.BABU, AGED 19 YEARS, POLAYIL HOUSE,NORTH FORT GATE, TRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM. 5. NEENU,D/O.LATE.J.BABU, AGED 16 YEARS, POLAYIL HOUSE, NORTH FORT GATE, TRIPUNITHURA, ENAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3428 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.2411 of 2001 on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.65,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for six months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure to first respondent. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.A.98 of 2006. When the appeal was pending, first respondent died and respondents 3 to 5 were impleaded as his legal heirs. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and on the evidence, it should have been found that petitioner has borrowed only Rs.10,000/- and it was repaid. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the CRRP 3428/2008 2 judgments of courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the factual findings arrived at by learned Magistrate on proper appreciation of evidence and confirmed by learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence. Evidence of PW1 and DW1 were properly appreciated by courts below. Nothing was pointed out, which was omitted to be taken note of by the courts below. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards the repayment of Rs.65,000/- which was borrowed by revision petitioner. It is also proved that cheque 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. 4. Then the only question is whether the sentence warrants interference. Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner only for fine and that too for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. I find no reason to interfere with sentence also. Revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine from today. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-