IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3941 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.223/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTFAST TRACK COURT NO.II (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.239/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED, S/O.POONATH UMMER, PORATTUVEETTIL, VATTEKKAD AMSOM, ORUMANAYOOR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SATHEESA BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNJUMUHAMMED HAJI, S/O. KAIPPARAYIL MAMMU PUNNAYOOR AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST, 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMAPPU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3941 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 4th day of December,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.239/2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for year and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.A.223/2006. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Revisions is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision CRRP3941/2008 2 petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the concurrent findings and the evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but he may be granted six months time to pay the compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. 5. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- from first respondent and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 15.6.2001 and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 6. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the CRRP3941/2008 3 sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- which is the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Though learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner sought six months time, it is to be noted that the cheque was issued in 2001 and the complaint itself was filed in 2002. In such circumstance, he is not entitled to get that much time sought for. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the amount. He is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam on 5.3.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006