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. 261 of 2009() ----------------------------- CC.181/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,II, KASARAGOD CRA.211/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC) II, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------- VIJAYA SHETTY, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.BANTAPPA SHETTY,AKSHATHA BUILDING,NEAR RAILWAY CROSS, PADIL, KANNUR,MANGALORE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHANA SHETTY, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.SANKAPPA SHETTY, HOSEBETTU, HOSAMANE P.O. MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R2 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.261,262 & 264 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 22nd day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.181/2005, 131/2005 and 135/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kasaragod. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in all the cases. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Additional Sessions Court, Kasaragod respectively in Crl.A.211/2006,212/2006 and 213/2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge as per common judgment dated 12.11.2008 confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs.45,000/- each and in default simple imprisonment for three months. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. CRRP261,262,264 of 2009 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of courts below and the evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and sentence and he seeks only six months time for payment of fine. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. 5. Evidence establish that the respective dishonoured cheques were issued by the revision petitioner in favour of first respondent in discharge of existing liability and the cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under CRRP261,262,264 of 2009 3 section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.45,000/- each and in default simple imprisonment for three months. The cheque in the respective cases is for Rs.45,000/-. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and fine which was for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque in each case. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to first respondent as compensation. Revisions are dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the fine. He is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kasaragod on 22.7.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- CRRP261,262,264 of 2009 4 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006