IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 363 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.710/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA ST.2417/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- THERUVATH KANDIYIL ASOKAN S/O. CHATHU, AGED 36 YEARS, NELLIYULLATHIL HOUSE KALLACHI PO, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. V.K.KRISHNAN, S/O. BAPPU, AGED 75 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER DINESH ENTERPRISES, J.T.ROAD, VADAKARA, REPRESENTED BY P.A.HOLDER, V.K.SUDHEER, S/O. V.K.KRISHNAN, PARTNER DINESH ENTERPRIESES J.T.ROAD, VADAKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO. 363 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 3rd day of February,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.2417/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions Court, Vadakara in Crl.A.710/2007. 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 the revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent CRRP 363/2009 2 findings of fact revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but the sentence may be modified. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner had settled the dispute with the first respondent and he has agreed to pay the amount within three months and therefore petitioner may be permitted to pay the amount directly to first respondent. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. 5. Evidence establish that towards repayment of Rs.2,75,000/- which was due to first respondent, revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also established that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction of revision petitioner CRRP 363/2009 3 for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Learned Magistrate sentenced revision petitioner to simple imprisonment for six months and a compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months. Considering the nature of the offence, interest of justice will be met if the sentence is modified with sufficient compensation to first respondent. So long as the sentence is not altered or modified against the interest of first respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to first respondent. As per the sentence confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, first respondent is to get a compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-. Revision is therefore allowed in part. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Revision CRRP 363/2009 4 petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.2,75,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to first respondent as compensation. Revision petitioner is permitted to pay the compensation directly to first respondent and produce the receipt before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara and establish that the fine, which is to be paid on realisation to first respondent as compensation, has been paid. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vadakara on 4.5.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006