IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 159 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.796/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM CC.308/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- THOMAS MATHEW, KADUPPILKUNNEL HOUSE, MEENADOM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. RAJAMANI CHETTIAR, RAJESH BHAVAN, AYARKUNNAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PP SRI MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 159 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JANUARY, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C. 308 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kottayam. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. He challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl.A.796 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 fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation, as compensation to first respondent. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of the courts below and the evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and revision petitioner may be granted six months time to pay the fine. 3. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from CRRP 159/2009 2 first respondent and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment, which was dishonoured when presented for encashment 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. In such circumstances, conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the question is with regard to the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, in addition to a fine and that too only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. In such circumstances, sentence also does not warrant any interference. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner is negotiating sale of his property for making payment to first respondent and therefore he may be granted six months time to pay the fine. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time from today to pay the fine. He is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 15.7.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-