IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 177 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.782/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.1856/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT -------------------------------------- STEPHEN, S/O.THOMAS NADAR, KIDARAKKUZHY, PUTHEN VEEDU, KADAVATTARAM POST, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.A.L.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- 1. M/S.MOHAMMED BADISHA, S/O.ALI AKBAR, SHYNI VILLA, KANYAKULANGARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 177 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 30th day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.1856/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Nedumangad. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.782/2007. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.77,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for four months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. CRRP 177/2009 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel argued that courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and there is no acceptable and credible evidence to prove that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of any debt or liability. It was also argued that Ext.P1 is vitiated by material alteration as the cheque was issued for Rs.17,000/- which was altered to Rs.77,000/-and the conviction is not sustainable. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below and copies of the depositions of the witnesses and Ext.P1 made available by the learned counsel, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Though learned counsel vehemently argued that there is material alteration in Ext.P1 and therefore Ext.P1 is invalid on perusing Ext.P1 in the light of the evidence of the revision petitioner as DW2, I find no reason to differ with CRRP 177/2009 3 the view taken by the courts below. As DW2 revision petitioner admitted that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by him though he has a case that the cheque was for Rs.17,000/- and the cheque was materially altered to Rs.77,000/- without his consent. But in cross examination DW2 unambiguously admitted that name of the payee in Ext.P1 was written by him. On a perusal of the name of the payee with the amount written in words it is clear that both name of the payee and the amount in words were written in the same handwriting. If that be so, it cannot be disputed that the amount written in words in Ext.P1 was also written by the revision petitioner. If that be so, Ext.P1 is not for Rs.17,000/- and there is no alteration much less material alteration. On going through the deposition of PW1 and Dws 1 and 2 I find no reason to differ with the view taken by the courts below on proper appreciation that and Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of the existing liability CRRP 177/2009 4 and was not a cheque for Rs.17,000/- as claimed by the petitioner. The evidence also establish that Ext.P1 cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. In such circumstance, conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a fine of Rs.77,000/- which is the amount covered by the dishonoued cheque. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006