IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3894 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.521/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.106/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- PRATHAPAN, S/O.VASU, KERANTAKATH HOUSE, THIRUVATHRA DESOM, MANATHALA AMSOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. N. SREEDHARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, 'KRISHNANIVAS', NEDIYEDATH HOUSE, MANATHALA AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 3894 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in C.C.106 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner is challenging the conviction before Sessions Court, Thrissur in Crl. Appeal 521 of 2004. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for second respondent were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but the sentence is excessive and it may be modified. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent submitted that cheque is for Rs.2,60,000/- and the cheque was issued CRRP 3894/2008 2 in 1998 and therefore no interference will be made on the sentence. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards payment of the amount due, inclusive of the interest and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned Magistrate awarded a substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one year in addition to a compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- with a default sentence. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that revision petitioner will deposit the compensation amount within five months from today. The learned counsel undertook that revision petitioner will deposit the amount. In view of the submission the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of Court and compensation. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Revision petitioner is sentenced to CRRP 3894/2008 3 imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.2,60,000/- to be paid or deposited within five months from today. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad on 15.6.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb