IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2008 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4113 of 2008() ---------------------------------- S.T.1313/2005 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II,PATHANAMTHITTA CRA.161/2007 OF SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA. REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- THAMPY ABRAHAM S/O. ABRAHAM, KAITHVANA HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY POST,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------ 1. THOMAS CHACKO KOCHUTHUNDIYIL HOUSE,THEKKEMALA P.O.,KOZHENCHERRY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.4113 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 18th day of December,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.1313/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta. 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, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.161/2007. 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.1,25,000/. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the concurrent CRRP 4113/2008 2 findings of fact and the evidence on record revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction. But because of the financial conditions of the revision petitioner, he may be granted six months time to pay the amount as directed by learned Sessions Judge. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. In such circumstance the revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation as directed by the Sessions Judge. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta on 18.6.2009. sd/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- /true copy/ P.S to Judge M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006