IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 103 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.142/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.150/2004 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- SABEER BAN, W/O.HABEEB, THLIYANIKKARA PUTHENVEEDU, ANAPPARA, PATHANMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT 2 & 1/COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KHADEEJA ABUBEKKER @ KADEJA BEEVI, W/O. ABUBEKER, THUNDIPARAMBIL(THARAKAN PURAYIDAM), VALAMCHUZHY, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SR.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.103 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 9th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the complainant in C.C.150/04 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction before Sessions court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.142/07. Learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified sentence of imprisonment till rising of court and compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- which was the amount covered by dishonoured cheque. Revision is filed challenging conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel in view of concurrent finding of fact and evidence on record submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but he may be granted four months' time to pay CRRP 103/09 2 compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.1,25,000/- towards discharge of existing liability and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time as sought for to pay the compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta on 11/5/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.