IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4015 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.239/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-2), THRISSUR CC.79/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- P.RAVINDRAN, S/O.PONNAN, AGED 44, PANICKATH HOUSE, PANICKATH FILMS, VAKKAD P.O., KANNADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------- 1. K.BASANTH, S/O.NANNIKUTTY AMMA, 54 B, SREECHAKRAM APPARTMENTS, SAMOOHAM ROAD, GURUVAYOOR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.4015 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated 222nd January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.79/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and in default simple imprisonment for one month. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions court,Thrissur in Crl.A.239/2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision is challenging the conviction only on the ground that Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnumkulam has no CRRP 4015/08 2 jurisdiction to try the offence. Argument of learned counsel is that as admitted by the first respondent his permanent address is at Madras and transaction had taken place at Madras and therefore, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnumkulam has no jurisdiction to try the offence. Learned counsel made available copy of deposition of first respondent as PW1. Evidence of PW1 shows that he admitted that his permanent address is at Madras. But it is his specific case that during the period when Ext.P1 cheque was issued, he was residing at Guruvayur at his daughter's house. More over, it is specific case of revision petitioner that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner from his house at Palakkad and first respondent presented the cheque at the place where he was residing at that time and when it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds it was demanded by sending notice from there. When one of the five components for constituting an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act had taken place within the jurisdiction of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnumkulam, learned Magistrate has definitely the jurisdiction to try the offence. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction on that CRRP 4015/08 3 ground. 4. Judgments of courts below establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from first respondent for his film business and subsequently towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque 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 circumstance, 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. Learned Magistrate awarded a substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for one year in addition to compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 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 sentence awarded by courts below first respondent is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met, if sentence is modified to imprisonment CRRP 4015/08 4 till rising of court and fine with a direction to pay compensation on realisation of fine to first respondent. 6. Revision 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 a fine of Rs.3,10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months. On realisation of fine Rs.3,00,000/- is to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Code of Civil Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam on 23/3/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.