IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3938 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.300/2003 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.21/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV (MOBILE), TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------- SHAMSUDEEN, S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, RESIDING AT TC.49/189, ATHIKA, KALLATTUMUKKU, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------- 1. C. KARTHIKESAN, HOUSE NO.225, T.C.15/342, CSM NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3938 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.21 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.1,01,000/- for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.300 of 2003. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, in addition to a compensation of Rs.1,01,000/-. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings, petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but only seeks three months time to pay the compensation. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the CRRP 3938/2008 2 judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner towards repayment of the amount due and 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 N.I.Act. Conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the only question is with regard to sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court maintaining the compensation, which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted in sentence also. 6. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the compensation as directed by Sessions Judge. Petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Thiruvananthapuram on 4.3.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-