IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 140 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.489/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD ST.1093/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- MADHUSOODANAN , AGED 48 S/O. V.K.NARAYANAN, DRIVER, DISTRICT COURT COURT PREMISES, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN , AGED 50 S/O.APPA MOOTHAN, 29/243 ATHIRA NIVAS, TEMPLE STREET, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 140 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.1093 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction was challenged before Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl. Appeal 489 of 2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs.60,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence on record and concurrent findings of fact revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence, but the revision petitioner, because of his financial conditions, may be granted one year's time. CRRP 140/2009 2 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.55,000/- from first respondent and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment. It is also proved 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 is perfectly legal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to fine setting aside the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment awarded by learned Magistrate. Fine awarded is only Rs.60,000/- and the cheque is for Rs.55,000/- dated 7.2.2005. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the fine. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb