IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3340 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.486/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.178/2003 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.RAVUF, S/O NABEESU, AGED 50 YEARS, ESCOTEL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS EXPORTERS, LUCKY TOWER, LOGANS ROAD, THALASSERY, RESIDING AT SABEENA, GOODSHED ROAD, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINT AND STATE:- ----------------------------------------------- 1. K.A. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O ABU, NARANGAPURAM, THALASSERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3340 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.178 of 2003 on the file of Additional chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.60,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months, with a direction to pay Rs.55,000/- out of the fine realised to first respondent as compensation. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thalassery in Crl.A.486 of 2003. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, maintaining the fine and direction to pay compensation. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel argued that courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and there is no evidence to prove that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt or liability and therefore the conviction is not sustainable. CRRP 3340/2008 2 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 sentence. Courts below appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and found that Ext. P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of Rs.50,000/- which was received from first respondent earlier. Evidence also establish that 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 N.I.Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the only question is with regard to the sentence. Though learned Magistrate awarded a substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for three months, learned Sessions Judge reduced the same to imprisonment till rising of court. Learned Magistrate awarded a fine of Rs.60,000/- which was maintained by learned Sessions Judge. Ext.P1 cheque is for Rs.50,000/- and was issued in 2002. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. 5. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 17.2.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-