IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3802 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.716/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.5/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.D.JOHN @ JOHNAPPAN, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE,PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,. 2. C.V.FRANCIS, CHETTAKKATTU HOUSE, VEROOR P.O., CHANGANANCHERRY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3802 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in C.C.5 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottayam. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kottayam in Crl.A.716 of 2007. 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.3,00,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for six months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to second respondent as compensation. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging either the conviction or the sentence and he may be granted six months time to pay the fine. 3. Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence of PW1 the second respondent and CRRP 3802/2008 2 based on Ext.P1 to P6 and evidence of PW1 found that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt viz, the amount borrowed by revision petitioner. It was also found that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent has 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 N.I.Act, in such circumstances, is perfectly legal. 4. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine, which was for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque with a default sentence. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the sentence also. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted six months time from today to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before learned Magistrate on 26.5.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-