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. 4011 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.360/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.7946/2003 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -II, PARAPPANANGADI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- KOLAKUNNATH SAIDALAVI, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, RAYIRIMANGALAM HOUSE, TANOOR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. T V L MASTER @ T.V.LAKSHMANAN MASTER, S/O.GANESHAN, GANESH BHAVAN, KATTILANGADI STREET, TANOOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU FOR R1 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. 4011 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in S.T. 7946 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Parappanangadi. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Manjeri in Crl. Appeal 360 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Revision is field challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and the evidence on record, submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and he may be granted four months time to pay the fine. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through CRRP4011/2008 2 the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioner towards the repayment of Rs.80,000/- borrowed earlier and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also proved that second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances no interference in the sentence is warranted. Revision petitioner is granted four months time from today to pay the compensation as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 16.4.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-