IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2011 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1323 of 2011() -------------------------------------------- CRA.5/2009 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), PALAKKAD ST.2702/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- K. RAMADAS @ KUNHUMON, S/O.NARAYANAN, ORUMAGOMAM, AYYAPPANKAVU, KALLADIKKODE, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N. SURESH BABU, S/O.LATE NATARAJA THARAKAN, NATARAJA NIVAS, BHAGAVATHY THERUVU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, 678 001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P. NO. 1323 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of May, 2011 O R D E R In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C the petitioner who was the accused in S.T.C.2702/06 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was Rs.1,20,000/-. The compensation amount ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.1,20,000/- 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It was concurrently held by the courts below that when the cheque in question drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant was presented for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. There was due compliance of Crl.R.P. NO. 1323 OF 2011 -:2:- Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Admittedly the revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount on receipt of the statutory notice. The courts below have analysed the evidence let in by the prosecution and considered the defence set up by the revision petitioner. It is seen that a careful evaluation of the entire oral and documentary evidence has been done by the courts below. Hence this Court will not be justified in interfering with the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the courts below. There is no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below. Hence conviction is confirmed. 4. Since the appellate court has modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for four months, no interference is called for in the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence this revision petition is dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient time may be granted to the petitioner to pay the Crl.R.P. NO. 1323 OF 2011 -:3:- amount so ordered. The petitioner is granted six months time to pay the entire amount of compensation. Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,JUDGE. ul/- [ true copy ] P.A. to Judge.