IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3866 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.717/2005 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.111/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ ACCUSED --------------------------------------- EDWARD JOSE (APPU),EDEN, KOOTHALI, KOOTHALI.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------- 1. A.NELSON, PAVATHIYAM VILA, PUTHEN VEEDU, PARASALA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI P RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3866 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.111 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions Court, Trivandrum in Crl.A.717 of 2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, in addition to a fine of Rs.75,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. On realisation of fine, it was directed to be paid to first respondent as compensation. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, petitioner is not challenging the conviction or sentence, but only seeks four months time to pay the fine. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was CRRP 3866/2008 2 issued by revision petitioner for Rs.75,000/- towards its repayment borrowed earlier and the cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also proved that first respondent sent a notice in writing demanding the amount covered by Ext.P1 and it was received by revision petitioner but he did not pay. Records also show that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to fine, which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, with a direction to pay the same on realisation as compensation to first respondent. I find no reason to interfere with sentence also. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the fine as directed by Sessions Judge. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 15.4.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-