IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 423 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.63/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOTTAYAM ST.114/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHANGANACHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- C.D.BABU, CHATHANADU, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, NEAR PUZHAVATHU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------- 1. JOSEPH THOMAS, VALIAKUNNUMPURATHU, THENGANA, PERUMPANACHY,MADAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.423 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 4th February 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.114/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Changanacherry. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions court, Kottayam in Crl.A.63/2008. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of the evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Revision is filed challenging conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner, in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact submitted that revision CRRP 423/09 2 petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and prays only time for payment of the compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards repayment of Rs.50,000/- borrowed from first respondent. Cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also established that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation of Rs.50,000/- and that too for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the compensation. CRRP 423/09 3 Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Changanacherry on 4/6/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.