IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4112 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.709/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.797/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MATTANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- SANTHOSH MATHEW ,S/O.MATHEW AGED 39 YEARS, VILAMANA AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DIST BY ADV. SRI.JIJI THOMAS SMT.SMITHA JIJI PAMBACKAL RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE : --------------- 1. A.J.VARGHESE, S/O.JOHN EDEYELEMURIYIL HOUSE, KILIYANTHARA PO, KANNUR DIST 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.4112 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.797/2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was challenged before Sessions court, Thalassery in Crl.A.709/2004. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation for Rs.1,10,000/-. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of fact and the evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and revision petitioner may be granted four months time to pay the fine. CRRP 4112/08 2 3. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner towards repayment of Rs.1,00,000/- borrowed earlier and it 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 revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation to first respondent. In such circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 5/5/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.