IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 251 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRA.638/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC NO.I), PALAKKAD ST.2295/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- LAKSHMANAN, S/O.APPUCHETTIYAR, CHEMBADAM KALAM, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------- 1. RATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.KESAVAN, KEEZHCHIRA KALAM, VADAVANNUR, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 251 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 21st day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.2295/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.A.638/2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and confirmed the direction to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision CRRP 251/2009 2 petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence; but sought time for payment of the amount. Learned counsel submitted that wife of the revision petitioner is suffering from cancer and she is to be taken to Velloor and financial condition of the revision petitioner is so bad and therefore he may be granted six months time to pay the compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. 5. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.20,000/- from first respondent and issued Ext.P1 cheque on 13.4.2005 which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. Evidence also establish that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under section 138 CRRP 251/2009 3 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 6. Though learned Magistrate awarded simple imprisonment for one month in addition to compensation, learned Sessions Judge modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of court maintaining compensation. Compensation awarded is only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted five months time to pay the fine. He is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakkad on 22.6.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006