IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3871 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.426/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.2793/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 54 YEARS, THANDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUVADY POST, MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. P.A.KUNHU MARAKKAR, S/O.P.K.ALI, AGED 31 YEARS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, SELVAPALAYAM, PALAKKAD - 1. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMAPPU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 3871 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 1st day of December,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.2793/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before the Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.A.426/2006. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for six months with a direction to pay fine on realisation to first respondent. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of CRRP 3871/2008 2 the concurrent findings of fact revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and is only seeking four months time to pay the fine. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. 5. Evidence of PW1 establish that Exts.P1(a) and P1(b) cheques were issued towards the repayment of Rs.1,00,000/- due from the revision petitioner and the cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and inspite of the demand revision petitioner did not pay the amount. First respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to only fine and that too for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheques. In such CRRP 3871/2008 3 circumstance, sentence also does not warrant any interference. Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time from today to pay the fine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006