IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4026 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.531/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.831/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- K.P.VALSALAKUMARI W/O.K.VASUDEVAN, TEACHER, A.U.P.SCHOOL KARAMBATHOOR PO., PALLIPURAM, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S)/RESPODENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------- 1. CHITHAMBARA SWAMI, S/O.PERIYASWAMI THAVAKKAL QUARTERS, KOTTANAD, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 4026 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.831 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pattambi. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl. Appeal 531 of 2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs.2,10,000/- with a direction to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on realisation to first respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of facts and the evidence on record revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or sentence and he may be granted six months time to pay the fine. CRRP4026/2008 2 3. On going through the judgments of Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the modified sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment, which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, when 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 the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to fine with a direction to pay fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation under section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore no interference in the sentence is also warranted. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time from today to pay the fine. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-