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. 3947 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.182/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC.190/2003 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------- P.MOHANAKUMARI, PARIMALAM, NEAR CHACKAI GOVT.U.P.SCHOOL, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA SRI.PRAVEEN.P. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. B.AMBUJAKSHAN, AMBUJAVILASOM, THONNACKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU FOR R1 SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) 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. 3947 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in C.C. 190 of 2003 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for six months. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl. Appeal 182 of 2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but sentence was modified to a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for six months with a direction to pay the same on realisation to second respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that he is not challenging the conviction or the sentence and seeks only six months time to pay the fine. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through CRRP 3947/2008 2 the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the second respondent and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque, which was dishonoured for want f sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also proved that second respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to fine with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for six months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to second respondent as compensation. The fine awarded is only for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances sentence also does not warrant any interference. Revision is dismissed. Petitioner is granted six months time from today to pay the compensation. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-