IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3896 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.192/2005 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.904/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- ANITHA KURIAN, MANNOOPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARIPPU.P.O., KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & NOT PARTY: --------------- 1. RAJU JOHN, VAZHACHIRA PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL FOR R.1 SRI.AJEY THOMAS FOR R.1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO. 3896 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 16th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.904/2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottayam. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- an in default simple imprisonment for four months for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions court, Kottayam in Crl.A.192/2005. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation 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 learned counsel appearing for first respondent were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision CRRP 3896/09 2 petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but considering the fact that revision petitioner is a lady and also the circumstances of the case, sentence may be modified and maximum time may be granted for revision petitioner to pay the amount. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from first respondent and issued Ext.P1(a) cheque towards its repayment which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, when presented for encashment. It is also proved that 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. 5. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case interest of justice will be met if sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and fine with a CRRP 3896/09 3 direction to pay compensation to first respondent out of the fine realised. Ext.P1 is for Rs.2,00,000/- and learned Magistrate had directed revision petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs.2,10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357 (1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted five months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kottayam on 15/6/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.