IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 324 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.555/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC I), PALAKKAD ST.345/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LEELA TEACHER,W/O.NARAYANAN,AMRITHA KRIPA, VENGODI, PARA, ELAPPULLI,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVOCATE MR..RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.KRISHNAN,S/O.VELAYUDHAN, 11/574, KAVITHA, HARIKKARA STREET, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.324 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 28th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.345/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions court, Palakkad in Crl.A.555/2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and confirmed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is challenged in this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact revision petitioner is not challenging the CRRP 324/09 2 conviction and it is stated in Crl.M.A.741/2009 and revision petitioner may be granted six months time to pay the compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment and Ext.P1 was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also established that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and maintained the compensation awarded by the Magistrate. Compensation awarded was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. 6. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay CRRP 324/09 3 compensation as sought for. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad on 28/7/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.