IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3584 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.1113/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.397/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------ RAJENDRA BABU, S/O. VIVEKANANDAN, R.B.AGENCIES, MANI MANDIRAM VEERALAM, ATTINGAL P.O. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. JAYAPALAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, KALACHANAZHIKAM, CHIRAYINKIL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3584 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 7th day of November,2008 ORDER Petitioner is the accused and first respondent complainant in C.C.397/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and a compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by learned Magistrate. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.1113/2006. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. Conviction and sentence is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner CRRP 3584/2008 2 was heard. 3. Learned counsel argued that courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and therefore the conviction is not sustainable. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction. 4. Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. It was found that the case advanced by the petitioner at the time of questioning under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is contrary to the suggestions made to the first respondent at the time of cross examination. It is also found that inspite of receipt on Ext.P3 notice, petitioner did not sent any reply and there is no evidence to prove the defence raised. The view taken by the courts below is the proper and reasonable view. In such circumstance, conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. CRRP 3584/2008 3 5. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and also fine, the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, sentence also does not warrant any interference. Revision petition is dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner may be granted three months time to pay the fine. Petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006