IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4216 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.343/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.877/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- JOHNSON V.I, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O V.T.IYPE, PALAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PUTHENCHANDA P.O., VAKATHANAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS MATHEW MAVELIL, MAVELIL HOUSE, KAVIYOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 4216 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.877 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl. Appeal 343 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and confirmed the compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- directed to be paid by the learned Magistrate. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that though learned Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case, in view of the decision of this Court in Meenakshi Vs. Udayakumar and Another (2007 (2) KLD 432) whereunder it was held that question regarding objection of territorial jurisdiction is to be raised at the initial stage and not at the fag end of the trial, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the CRRP 4216/2008 2 sentence and revision petitioner may be granted time to make the payment. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that towards the repayment of Rs.1,10,000/- due, revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour of first respondent, which was 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 the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and maintained the compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-, which is the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted five months time to pay the compensation and appear before the Magistrate. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate on 15.6.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb