IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 55 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRA.4/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.253/2001 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ ACCUSED --------------------------------------- R.G.VILASKUMAR, KALLINGAVILA VEEDU, NETTYAM, KOCHANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.WORKING AS TYPIST, FCI, VALIAYATHURAI, VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. S.RAMACHANDRAN, TC 41/1771, LEKHA BHAVAN MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 55 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 6th day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.253/2001 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months with a direction to pay Rs.1,95,000/- out of the fine realised to first respondent as compensation. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.4/2008. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months with a direction to pay CRRP 55/2009 2 Rs.1,95,000/- to first respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel, in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence but revision petitioner may be granted sufficient 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 establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,80,000/- from first respondent and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment and Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also established that 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 CRRP 55/2009 3 section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is therefore perfectly legal. 6. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- with a direction to pay Rs.1,95,000/- out of the fine realised to first respondent as compensation. Though learned counsel submitted that the fine is excessive, considering the fact that the cheque is for Rs.1,80,000/- and the sentence provided under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act includes fine which could be upto double the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence. Though learned counsel sought for five months time, as cheque was issued in 2000 and the complaint was filed in 2001, four months time is granted. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Chief Judicial Magistrate,Thiruvananthapuram on 7.5.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE CRRP 55/2009 4 tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006