IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 76 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRA.1043/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.184/2005 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-VIII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (ST.642/2004 OF JFCM-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- PREMACHANDRAN NAIR, ROHINI BHAVAN, TC 40/1231.GANGA SOUNDS, BEHIND SASTHA KOVIL, MANACAUD PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SRI. RATHEESH A. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------- 1. V.VELAYUDHAN CHETTIYAR VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, VANIKORTHERUVU BALARAMAPURAM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE 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 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 76 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.642 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction was confirmed and sentence was modified by Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.Appeal 1043 of 2006. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner 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, but he may be granted four months time to pay the fine. 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 revision petitioner borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the first respondent and towards its repayment, issued Ext.P1 cheque, which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when CRRP 76/2009 2 presented for encashment. It is also proved 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 section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for five months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. The fine is only for 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 four months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvananthapuram on 11.5.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb