IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3923 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.639/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD ST.635/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- S.RAMESH, S/O.LATE SANKAR, ANARPADAMKALAM, PALLASSENA, KOLLENGODE PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V.RAMACHANDRAN, CHIRAG, CANARA BANK COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PP SRI C M KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3923 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.635 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Palakkad. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.A.639 of 2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings, petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but only seeks modification of sentence. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 and P2 CRRP 3923/2008 2 cheques were issued by revision petitioner towards the repayment of the amount due. It is also proved 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 N.I.Act. Conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the only question is with regard to sentence. Though learned Magistrate awarded a substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for six months, learned Sessions Judge set aside the substantive sentence and awarded only a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted in sentence also. 6. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the fine as directed by Sessions Judge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-