IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4125 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.325/2007 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.624/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- ANILKUMAR, ODHADAMKUZHYIL HOUSE, THALACODE P.O., MULANTHURUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY MATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. K.V. JOY, KALLAPPARA HOUSE, KUMARAMPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 4125 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.624 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl. Appeal 325 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.63,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for 45 days with a direction to pay the fine on realisation as compensation to first respondent. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner, in view of the concurrent findings of fact and the evidence on record, did not challenge the conviction and sought six months time to pay the fine as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence CRRP4125/2008 2 establish that the dishonoured cheque was issued towards the discharge of an existing liability and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all 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. 4. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.63,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for 45 days. In such circumstances I find no reason to interfere with sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 20.6.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-