IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3950 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.787/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), THRISSUR CC.1349/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- BABU, S/O.VISWAMBARAN, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADDY, KODALI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------- 1. LALAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHENNAMAKKAL HOUSE, NAITHAKUDI, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY 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 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO.3950 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.1349 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.Appeal 787 of 2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- which is the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel, in view of the concurrent findings and the evidence on record, did not challenge the conviction or the sentence and sought only time for payment of compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below I CRRP3950/08 2 find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of the amount borrowed earlier and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of N.I. Act. Conviction of the petitioner under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge sentenced petitioner to imprisonment till rising of Court, in addition to a compensation which is only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances no interference is warranted in the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time from today to pay the compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 2.6.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-