IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 123 of 2009(A) ----------------------------- CRA.402/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.358/2006 of JFCM-X, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- LATHA JAYAN, ACCOUNTANT , SECTION G.E.22, 6TH FLOOR, AUDIT BHAVAN, A G'S OFFICE, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.R.T.PRADEEP MR.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V.BINU, PLAMAN VEEDU, AMBALATHINKUNNU, KAZHAKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No. 123 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in S.T. 358 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-X, Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal 402 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to second respondent as compensation. Revision petitioner is challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner in CRRP 123/2009 2 view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but because of the financial conditions revision petitioner may be granted six months time to pay the fine. 3. 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 revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and also for the reason that the account was closed. It is also proved that second 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. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque directing that on realisation of fine it is to be paid to second respondent as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of Code of Criminal CRRP 123/2009 3 Procedure. In the nature of the sentence, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted five months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-X, Thiruvananthapuram on 2.7.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb