IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2011 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1315 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRA.465/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.2/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ SUJITH KUMAR.C.G., S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, CHANNAKKUNNEL, THEKKETHUKAVALA POST, PONKUNNAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT-STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. C.V.SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, CHANNAKKUNNEL, THEKKETHUKAVALA POST, PONKUNNAM-686 506. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.K.MEERA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No. 1315 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of May, 2011 O R D E R In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C the petitioner who was the accused in S.T.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kanjirappally, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The cheque amount was Rs.50,000/-. The fine ordered by the lower appellate court is Rs.50,000/-. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It was concurrently held by the courts below that when the cheque in question drawn by the petitioner in favour of the complainant was presented for encashment it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of fund. There was due compliance of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Admittedly the revision petitioner did not pay the cheque amount on receipt of the statutory notice. The courts below have Crl.R.P. No. 1315 of 2011 2 analysed the evidence let in by the prosecution and considered the defence set up by the revision petitioner. It is seen that a careful evaluation of the entire oral and documentary evidence has been done by the courts below. Hence this Court will not be justified in interfering with the findings of fact concurrently recorded by the courts below. There is no illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the conviction so recorded concurrently by the courts below. Hence conviction is confirmed. 4. Since the revision petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of court and to pay Rs.50,000/- as fine with a default sentence of simple imprisonment of two months, I think it is just and proper to modify the same. Hence in supersession of the sentence awarded by the court below the accused/revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation within one month from today and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Crl.R.P. No. 1315 of 2011 3 5. The revision petitioner is granted one month time from today to pay the amount of compensation to the complainant or to deposit it before the trial Court. 6. Money, if any, deposited by the revision petitioner shall be adjusted towards the above compensation payable by the revision petitioner. The complainant shall be permitted to withdraw the amounts in deposit. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dmb