IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4226 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.393/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC I), PALAKKAD ST.13/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MANNARKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- MANIKANDAN, S/O.MEPPADATH VASU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PAVITHRAM, THOTTARA P.O., KARIMBUZHA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. P.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, MADHAVI NILAYAM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.4226 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.13/05 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction and sentence before the Sessions court, Palakkad in Crl.A.393/06. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and modified the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and confirmed the direction to pay compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record and concurrent findings of fact, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction or the sentence but he may be granted four months time to CRRP 4226/09 2 pay the compensation as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that towards repayment of Rs.60,000/- borrowed, revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque to first respondent which was dishonoured when presented for encashment, for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstances conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge modified sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and confirmed compensation which was only for the amount covered by dishonoured cheque. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted in the sentence also. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay compensation. Revision petition is dismissed. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the CRRP 4226/09 3 compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad on 5/5/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.