IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1225 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.415/2008 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.312/2007 of J.F.C.M. COURT III, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- B.AMBILI, @ MURK MANS' SOMASUNDARAM, D-95, FOREST LINE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. G.PASKAL, AMALA BHAVAN, PARANGODE, KOTTAYKKAKAM, ARYANAD- 695 002. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MRS. LATHA THANKAPPAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1225 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of May, 2011 ORDER In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C the petitioner who was the accused in S.T.No.312/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Nedumangad challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against her for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was `.20,000/-. The fine/compensation ordered by the lower appellate court is `.20,000/-. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It was concurrently held by the courts below that when the cheque in question drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant was presented for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. There was due compliance of Crl.R..P.No.1225/11 2 Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Admittedly the revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount on receipt of the statutory notice. The courts below have analysed the evidence let in by the prosecution and considered the defence set up by the revision petitioner. It is seen that a careful evaluation of the entire oral and documentary evidence has been done by the courts below. Hence this Court will not be justified in interfering with the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the courts below. There is no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below. Hence conviction is confirmed. 4. Since the revision petitioner was sentenced only to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay `.20,000/- as compensation and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two days, I find no justification to interfere with the sentence passed against the revision petitioner. However, the revision petitioner is granted two months' time to deposit the amount of compensation and on failure to deposit the said mount within the aforesaid period, the learned Magistrate will execute the sentence. Crl.R..P.No.1225/11 3 Money, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner shall be adjusted towards the above compensation payable by the revision petitioner. The complainant shall be permitted to withdraw the amounts in deposit. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE acd Crl.R..P.No.1225/11 4