IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4029 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.505/2004 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CC.14/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- A. POULOSE, S/O. ENOSE, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, MEMALA, ATTINKOODU, KOTTAKKAKAM MURI, VITHURA VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. G. THOMAS, S/O. GEORGE, JOHNVILASOM VEEDU, MARUTHAMALA, ADIPARAMPE, KOTTAKKAKAM MURI, VITHURA VILLAGE. 2. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMAPPU FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.4029 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 11th day of December,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.14/2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Nedumangad. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.505/2004. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision CRRP 4029/2008 2 petitioner submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of fact and the evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and revision petitioner may be granted time to pay the fine. 3. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. 4. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.15,000/- and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque on 30.1.2000. Evidence establish that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the 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 in addition to a fine of Rs.20,000/- with a direction CRRP 4029/2008 3 to pay the same on realisation to first respondent as compensation. In such circumstance, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. He is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad on 16.3.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006