IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3506 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.353/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD ST.3140/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR REVN. PETITIONER: ----------------------------- D.JANARDHANAN S/O.SREEDHARAN, PARAYANKADU, POLPULLY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. MOHAMMED MATHERSHA,S/O.SULAIMAN RAWTHER CHINNAPPALLI STREET, PUDUNGARAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEEDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.Revision Petition No. 3506 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision Petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.No.3140/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur. Revision Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction and sentence were challenged before the Additional Sessions Court-III, Palakkad in Criminal Appeal No.353/2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re- appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to a fine of Rs.60,000/- and in default to simple imprisonment for two months with a direction that on realization of fine, it is to be paid to the first respondent as compensation. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. Crl.R.P.No.3506/2008 - 2 - 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that, in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and revision petitioner may be granted four months' time to pay the fine. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Exhibit P1 cheque for Rs.50,000/-, on 13-1-2004, being the balance amount payable by the revision petitioner for purchase of cement on credit basis after deducting Rs.14,000/-, which was paid paid in cash earlier. Evidence also establish that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and in spite of demand in writing for the amount covered by the Crl.R.P.No.3506/2008 - 3 - dishonoured cheque, petitioner did not pay. Evidence also establish that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then, the question for consideration is whether sentence is reasonable. 5. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to a fine and that too only Rs.10,000/- in excess of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for a sentence of fine, which could be double the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Crl.R.P.No.3506/2008 - 4 - Revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petitioner is granted two months' time to pay the fine. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE skr