IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3611 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.971/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.212/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- THULASI BAI, T.C.14/1395,VAYALIL BHAVAN, OPPOSITE GANAPATHI TEMPLE,VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW WORKING AS SWEEPER, CANARA BANK, CANTONMENT BRANCH, SPENCER JUNCTION PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. S.VIJAYA GOPALAN NAIR, TC.14/1651, D-91,FOREST OFFICE LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3611 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.212 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner was concurrently convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Though learned Magistrate sentenced petitioner to imprisonment in addition to compensation, learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.27,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month with a direction to pay Rs.25,000/- out of the fine so realised to first respondent as compensation under section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel made an endorsement that the revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and sentence. The evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards payment of the legally recoverable debt CRRP3611/08 2 and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent has complied with the statutory formalities provided under Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. 3. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court, in addition to the fine which is only Rs.2000/- more than the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances there is no illegality in the sentence warranting interference. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner prayed for six months time to pay the fine contending that she is only a sweeper and because of the financial capacity she is not in a position to pay the amount. In such circumstances while confirming the conviction and sentence petitioner is granted six months time from today to pay the fine. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-