IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4045 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.599/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.1118/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------------- 1. U. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. UNNI MOOTHAN, 29/87 (1), SREE RAGAM, AMBALAPARAMBU, KARNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD. 2. M. GEETHA, W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, 29/87 (1), SREE RAGAM, AMBALAPARAMBU, KARNAKI NAGAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SMT.PRIYA BABU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. M. MEERANKUTTY, S/O.K.V. MOHAMMED, THEKKETHARA, MARUTHA ROAD, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.08, THE COURT ON 12/12/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P. No.4045 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008 ORDER Revision Petitioners are husband and wife. Revision Petitioners are accused in S.T.No.1118/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Palakkad. They were convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Judicial First Class Magistrate. Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl.A.No.599/2006 on re appreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to a fine of Rs.26,000/- each and in default simple imprisonment for one month. On realisation of fine, Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid to the first respondent as compensation under section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal procedure. Conviction is challenging in this revision. CRRP.NO.4045/08 2 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that, in view of the concurrent finding of facts and modified sentence revision petitioners are not challenging the conviction or sentence and revision petitioners may be granted 4 months time to pay the fine. 3. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioners towards repayment of Rs.50,000/- borrowed earlier and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioners for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable CRRP.NO.4045/08 3 Instruments act is perfectly legal. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to a fine of Rs.26,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month . In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioners are granted four months from today to pay the fine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE sks/-