IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3784 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.369/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), PALAKKAD CC.403/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MANNARKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.R. KRISHNAN, PADINHAKKARA HOUSE, KINAVALLOR PARALI, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAING & STATE:- ---------------------------------------------- 1. K.A.ABRAHAM, S/O. MATHAN ABRAHAM, KUNNIPURATH HOUSE, KARIMBA, EDAKURISSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3784 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.403 of 1996 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkad. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.A.369 of 2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court, maintaining his direction for compensation. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge elaborately considered the evidence and found that evidence of PW1 establish that Ext.P1cheque was issued by revision petitioner towards repayment of Rs.1,50,000/- borrowed earlier and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also proved that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided CRRP 3784/2008 2 under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court maintaining the direction to pay compensation. The compensation awarded is only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. 4. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the compensation as directed by Sessions Judge. He is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 16.2.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-