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. 4096 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.264/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CC.1190/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- V.V.GIRI, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHIRAVIL HOUSE KALAVOOR.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.S.SANAL KUMAR MS.BHAVANA. V. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.AMBI, S/O.LATE KUMARAN, 'ROHINI', NORTH ARYADU.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M. NAZAR FOR R1 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. 4096 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in C.C. 1190 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Alappuzha in Crl. Appeal 264 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.1,60,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for four months. On realisation of fine, it was directed to be paid to second respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below and the evidence on record, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence but revision petitioner may be granted time to pay the fine. 3. On going through the judgments of the Courts below I CRRP 4096/2008 2 find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards repayment of Rs.1,60,000/- borrowed earlier. Evidence also establish that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and 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. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque with a direction to pay the same on realisation to second respondent as compensation. In such circumstances 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-I, Alappuzha on 2.7.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb