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. 45 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRA.709/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM CC.1617/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHENGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.SAILESH, C.K.SADANAM, FATHIMAPURAM PO., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.CHAITHANYA TRADERS AND FINANCIERS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY. REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, DEVASIA PADIYARA, PADIYARA HOUSE, KAVALA., CHANGANACHERRY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA 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. 45 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 6th day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.1617/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, (Mobile)Kottayam. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction and sentence were challenged before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl.A.709/2004. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.49,600/- with a direction to pay fine on realisation as compensation to first respondent. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. CRRP45/2009 2 3. 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 three 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 establish that revision petitioner towards repayment of the amount due issued Ext.P1 cheque, which was dishonoured when presented for encashment. It was also not disputed that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal and warrants no interference. 6. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a CRRP45/2009 3 fine of Rs.49,600/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months with a direction to pay fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. The cheque is for Rs.49,600/-. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. He is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kottayam on 7.4.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006