IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2565 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.1204/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.77/2006 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- SREEDEVI AMMA, W/O.R. OMANAKUTTAN NAIR, QUARTER NO.23, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE STAFF QUARTERS, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH, SANTHI NIVAS, T.C.29/1496, CHEMPAKASSERY, PERUNTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.2565 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.77 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal 1204 of 2006. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months with a direction to pay Rs.22,000/- out of the fine, on realisation, to first respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that revision petitioner has filed a memo stating that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and sentence and he is only seeking time for payment of the fine. 3. On going through the judgments of the Courts below I CRRP 2565/2008 2 find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.25,000/- from first respondent and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque, which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Evidence also establish that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstances conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge has already modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine of Rs.25,000/- with a direction to pay Rs.22,000/- out of the fine realised as compensation to first respondent. Hence I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-VI, Thiruvananthapuram on 3.4.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb