IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 218 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.290/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.726/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------- BEENA RAJAN, D/O.RAGHAVAN RAGHAV SARAS, SANATHANAM WARD ALAPPUZHA NOW RESIDING AT C/O.CHINNAMMA KAPPAMMOOTTIL HUSE, NEAR CARD BANK Y.M.C.AA ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. A.KABEER, S/O. ABDUBAKER, ATHIRAPARAMBIL VELLAKKINAR, STADIUM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.218 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 222nd January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.726/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction was challenged before Sessions court, Alappuzha in Crl.A.290/2008. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and revision petitioner is only seeking three months time to pay the CRRP 218/09 2 compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.30,000/- and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment. It was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also established that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. So long as the sentence is not altered or modified against the interest of second respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to second respondent. Learned Magistrate awarded imprisonment till rising of court in addition to compensation. That also only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence. 6. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner CRRP 218/09 3 is granted three months time to pay compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha on 23/4/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.