IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 168 of 2001 -------------------------------------------- CRA.395/2000 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.1240/1999 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: SHAJI ABRAHAM, S/O ABRAHAM, M/S.KIRAN READYMADES, PARUMALAKADAVU, MANNR P.O., ALLEPPEY. BY ADV. SRI.P.F.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: 1. NAZAR.M., 44/2277, VILAYIL, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR R1 PP SRI.T.J.AMBOOKEN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.168/2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.168/2001 CLOSED 25.5.2009 SD/-K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.168 of 2001 -------------------------- ORDER The accused in C.C.No.1240/99 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam is the petitioner. He was tried for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further term of two months. On appeal, the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl.A.No.395/00, but, he modified the sentence to one of fine of Rs.10,000/- only, setting aside the sentence of imprisonment and ordered to undergo rigorous for a term of forty five days in case of failure to pay CRRP 168/01 2 the fine amount. It is against the said concurrent conviction that the accused has preferred this revision. 2. On going through the entire evidence in the case and the judgments of the courts below, I am convinced that there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the conviction entered into by the courts below concurrently against the petitioner. The Sessions Judge has, however, set aside the substantive term of imprisonment as well and has imposed only a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence. There is absolutely no merit in this revision. In the result, I dismiss this revision. 25th May, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv CRRP 168/01 3 K.P.Balachandran, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.168 OF 2001 -------------------------- ORDER 25th May, 2009