IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2011 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1314 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRA.297/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA ST.701/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -II, PEERMADE .................... PETITIONER(S):APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------- ZACARIA PAUL, MANAYATHU HOUSE, 1ST MILE, KUMALY P.O., KUMALY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT/NOT PARTY & COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.R.MOHANAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN KADALIKALAYIL, VALIYAKANDAM, KUMALY VILLAGE - 685 509. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.K.MEERA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1314 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2011 ORDER In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C the petitioner who was the accused in S.T.No.701/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peermade challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was ` 6,00,000/-. The fine ordered by the lower appellate court is ` 6,00,000/-. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It was concurrently held by the courts below that when the cheque in question drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant was presented for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. There was due compliance of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Admittedly the revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount on receipt of the statutory notice. The courts below have analysed the evidence let in by the Crl. R.P.No.1314/11 2 prosecution and considered the defence set up by the revision petitioner. It is seen that a careful evaluation of the entire oral and documentary evidence has been done by the courts below. Hence this Court will not be justified in interfering with the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the courts below. There is no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below. Hence conviction is confirmed. 4. Since the sentence was modified by the Sessions Judge and altered to fine of Rs.6,00,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, no interference is called for in the matter of sentence as well. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted six months' time from today to pay the entire fine amount and on failure to deposit the said mount within the aforesaid period, the learned Magistrate will execute the sentence. Money, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner shall be adjusted towards the above compensation payable by the revision petitioner. The complainant shall be permitted to withdraw the amounts in deposit. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE acd Crl. R.P.No.1314/11 3 Crl. R.P.No.1314/11 4