IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3870 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.32/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), PALAKKAD ST.1327/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MANNARKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------- K. NARAYANANKUTTY, NAMBIYATH HOUSE, KANNODE, (POST) THACHAMPARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T. SUKUMARAN, S/O. RAMAN, THAZHATHODI HOUSE, THRIKKALUR.P.O, THACHAMPARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, 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 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3870 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 1st day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.1327/2000 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence in Crl.A.32/2007 before Sessions Court, Palakkad. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court confirming the compensation awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. Petitioner is challenging the conviction and sentence in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel, in view of the concurrent CRRP 3870/2008 2 findings of fact and the evidence on record, submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and seeks only time for payment. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. 5. Learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. Evidence of PW1 first respondent establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards the repayment of Rs.50,000/- borrowed by him earlier. Evidence also establish that the cheque 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 revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, in such circumstance, is perfectly legal. 6. Then the only question is regarding the CRRP 3870/2008 3 sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of court while confirming the direction to pay compensation under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ext.P1 cheque is for Rs.50,000/-. The compensation awarded is only for that amount. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the compensation as directed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate on 1.4.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006