IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4030 of 2008() --------------------------------- S.T.3936/2003 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,CHITTUR CRA 488/2004 OF SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-II) PALAKKAD REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- SUNNA @ JAHIRHUSSAIN, S/O.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM PARUMALACHALLA, NATTUKAL POST VALIYAVALLAMPATHI CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN, S/O.KARUPPAN ALAMPADIYIL VALIYAVALLAMPATHI CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT/NON-PARTY 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.4030 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 11th day of December,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.3936/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.A.488/2004. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence. 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 concurrent findings of fact and the evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the CRRP 4030/2008 2 conviction but the sentence may be modified and time may be granted to the 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. 5. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the revision petitioner towards the repayment of Rs.75,000/- borrowed earlier. Evidence also proved that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also proved that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 6. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. So long as the sentence is not varied or modified against the interest of first respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to first respondent. Learned Magistrate awarded a sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and a CRRP 4030/2008 3 compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months but maintained the compensation. 7. On going through the judgments and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met if the sentence is sufficiently modified providing compensation to first respondent. Revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.80,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to first respondent as compensation under section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chittur on 17.3.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006