IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 238 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.1020/2006 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.39/2006 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- P.PRAMOD, S/O.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, T.C.43/431, TAIKOOTTAM, VALIYAVEEDU LANE, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------- 1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK TAXI DRIVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, T.723, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 238 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.39 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-VII, Thiruvananthapuram. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal 1020 of 2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.24,325/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month with a direction to pay the fine on realisation as compensation to first respondent. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the CRRP 238/2009 2 conviction or the sentence and he may be granted time to pay the fine. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that towards discharge of the existing liability revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque in favour of the first respondent which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also proved that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine and that too for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. CRRP 238/2009 3 Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-VII, Thiruvananthapuram on 20.4.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb