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. 3953 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.57/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-I, KOTTAYAM CC.75/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- ANILAMMA PUTHUPARAMBIL, AISWARYA BHAVAN, NAGAMPADAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.SASIDHARAN SRI.SANTHOSH THOMAS KANDANCHIRA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KOTTAYAM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., NO. 421, KOTTAYAM -1, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, P.S. THRIVIKRAMAN PILLAI BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU FOR R1 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. 3953 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in C.C.75 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Kottayam. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl. Appeal 57 of 2008. 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.35,000/-, 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 did not challenge the conviction and only sought three months time to pay the compensation as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through CRRP3953/08 2 the judgments of the Courts below I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards discharge of the existing liability and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and in spite of notice, revision petitioner did not pay the amount and second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of N.I. Act. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the question is with regard to the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court in addition to compensation which was almost 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 three months time from today to pay the compensation as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 6.3.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-