IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 453 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.593/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), PALAKKAD ST.479/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- LEELA, W/O.NARAYANAN, 5/604, 'AMRITHAKRIPA', VENGODI, ELAPPULLI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. ABRAHAM JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, 16/195, PADMA VIHAR, NEHRU COLONY, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.453 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th February 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.479/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. She challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions court, Palakkad in Crl.A.593/2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was confirmed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that petitioner is not challenging the conviction or sentence and need only time for payment of the compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere Crrp 453/09 2 with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment and the cheque when presented for encashment was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. 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.3,00,000/- for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In the circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence also. Revision is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay compensation. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that revision petitioner is undergoing imprisonment in Central prison. If, revision Crrp 453/09 3 petitioner is undergoing imprisonment in this case in Central prison and she is not wanted in any other case, she is to be released forthwith. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.