IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3853 of 2008() ------------------------------ (CC 300 OF 2005 OF JFCM-I, THRISSUR) (CRL.A.595 OF 2006 OF SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR) REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- MRS.SUKANYA REGHUNATH, D/O.REGHUNATH, SHADOWS DIGITAL STUDIO, VELIYANNUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------- 1. P.M.MOIDU, S/O.MUHAMED KUNJI, PONISSERY HOUSE, CHAKKARAPADAM P.O., PERINJANAM, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PP SRI C M KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3853 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.300 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thrissur. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl.A.595 of 2006. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that the amount was actually borrowed by the husband of revision petitioner and subsequently the husband is at loggerheads with revision petitioner and in such circumstances, petitioner may be granted four months time to pay the amount and she is not challenging the conviction. 3. On the submission of learned counsel, and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find not reason to interefere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that cheque was issued in discharge of the existing debt and it was CRRP 3853/2008 2 dishonoured and first respondent has complied with all the formalities. Sentence was only imprisonment till rising of court and compensation. Revision petitioner is granted four months to pay the amount as directed by learned Magistrate and confirmed by learned Sessions Judge. Revision petition is dismissed. Petitioner is directed to appear before learned Magistrate on 3.4.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-