IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3949 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.57/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.314/2006 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, (ADDL. MUNSIFF), KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- M.U.MANGALA GOWRI. AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.K.U.PADMANABHA THANDRI, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKANKOTTU ILLAM, MADIKAI POST, NILESHWAR(VIA) HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STAE: --------------------------------------- 1. P.I.ABRAHAM, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ISSAC, PURANGANAL HOUSE, PADUPPU, SANKARAMPADY POST, CHENGALA(VIA), KASARAGOD DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3949 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.314 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kasaragod. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Kasaragod in Crl. Appeal 57 of 2008. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but the sentence was modified to imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/-. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that before the conviction by the learned Magistrate, revision petitioner had paid Rs.95,000/- to first respondent as evidenced by Annexure-III receipt produced in the revision and this aspect was not taken into consideration by the Courts below. Learned counsel then CRRP3949/08 2 submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or sentence but he may be granted six months time to pay the compensation as directed by learned Sessions Judge. 4. 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. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,75,000/- and towards its discharge issued Ext.P1 cheque drawn in her account and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and in spite of notice revision petitioner did not pay the amount and thereby committed the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. 5. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of Court and a compensation which was only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Though it was argued that revision petitioner had paid Rs.95,000/- to first respondent, such payment will not enable revision petitioner to avoid the conviction or the sentence. CRRP3949/08 3 Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time from today to pay the compensation as directed by learned Sessions Judge. It is made clear that revision petitioner is entitled to pay the amount directly to the first respondent and establish before the Magistrate at the time of appearance that compensation was paid or deposit the compensation before the learned Magistrate. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 2.6.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-