IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4232 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.582/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK III), PALAKKAD ST.895/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- P.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN, VIII/39, PUZHUKKUNNATH HOUSE, CHANDRANAGAR POST, PALAKKAD, BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------- 1. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE THROUGH ITS PALAKKAD BRANCH, REP. BY ITS MANAGER.K.V.RAJA, S/O.KERALA VARMA RAJA. 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 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.4232 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.895/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction before Sessions court, Palakkad in Crl.A.582/2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to fine of Rs.40,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months with a direction to pay the fine, on realisation, to first respondent. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the CRRP 4232/08 2 sentence but because of financial conditions he may be granted four months time to pay the fine. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the modified sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioner to first respondent bank towards payment of the amount due and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to fine only with a direction to pay the fine, on realisation, to first respondent as compensation. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time from today to pay the fine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj. CRRP 4232/08 3