IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3518 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.88/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.505/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------------------------------------ P.B.HARIDAS, PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KUMARAKAM EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.PREMOD SRI.SUDHEER GANESH KUMAR.R. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINTS/FORMAL PARTY:- ---------------------------------------- 1. THE KUMARAKOM LIMESHELL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO. 1782, KUMARAKOM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AJIBA S. PRASAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSEUCOTR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3518 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.505 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottayam. First respondent lodged the complaint, contending that petitioner is a member of the Society and is having money transaction and towards discharge of the liability, issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 25.1.2008 drawn in his account and when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds under Ext.P2. Ext.P4 notice was sent demanding the amount covered by the cheque. It was received by petitioner under Ext.P5. Petitioner did not pay the amount. Instead he sent Ext.P6 and P7 requests admitting the liability and requesting time. On the failure of petitioner to pay the amount, he committed the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 2. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. Secretary of Society was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence. Learned Magistrate, on the evidence, found the petitioner guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months, and a compensation of Rs.62,490/-. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Crrp 3518/2008 2 Court, Kottayam in Crl.A.88 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.62,490 and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. On realisation of fine, it was directed to be paid to first respondent. Revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the conviction and sentence. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence and concurrent finding, he is not challenging the conviction or sentence and only seeks three months time to pay the fine. 4. Evidence of PW1 establish that petitioner, being a member of Society, had availed a loan and towards repayment of that loan, issued Ext.P1 cheque. Ext.P6 and P7 requests sent by petitioner on receipt of Ext.P3 notice, demanding the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque, establish that Ext.P1 was issued towards payment of the legally recoverable debt. Evidence also establish that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also proved that first respondent has complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of petitioner is perfectly legal and proper. 5. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Crrp 3518/2008 3 Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine for the amount covered by Ext.P1 cheque. In such circumstances, there is no necessity to interfere with the sentence also. On the submission of learned counsel, petitioner is granted three months time from today to pay the fine. 6. Revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine and also to appear before the learned Magistrate. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate, on the expiry of three months from today. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-