IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 384 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.416/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.532/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- E.V.AGASTHI, S/O.VARKEY INCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, PALA.PO, KOTTAYAM.PO. BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON MANAYANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------- 1. SUNNY KURUVILLA PONADU HOUSE, MELUKAVUMATTOM PO., 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M. NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No. 384 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C. 532 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction was confirmed and sentence was modified to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month by Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. 2. In view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but he may be granted time to pay the fine. 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 towards repayment CRRP 384/2009 2 of the loan of Rs.30,000/- obtained earlier from first respondent. It is also proved that the cheque 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 revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and fine, which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the fine as directed by the Sessions Judge. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta on 2.6.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb