IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4119 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.414/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH PARAVUR CC.1055/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------------- KOCHUPILLA, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.HYDROSE, POONCHERY HOUSE, EDATHALA P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. E.D.MATHUNNI, AGED 62 YEARS, EDAKALATHOOR VEEDU, QUARTERS ROAD, ALUVA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PP SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 4119 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.1055 of 2003 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aluva. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Conviction was confirmed but sentence was modified to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- with a direction to pay the same on realisation to first respondent as compensation. It is challenged in this revision petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of the courts below and evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but the sentence may be modified and time may be granted to pay the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from first respondent and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment and the cheque was dishonoured for CRRP 4119/2008 2 want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the question is with regard to the sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine with a direction to pay fine on realisation to first respondent as compensation. 5. Revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- 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 granted five months time to pay the fine. He is directed to appear CRRP 4119/2008 3 before the Magistrate on 20.5.2009. If petitioner had deposited any amount before the Magistrate in this case, he need only deposit the balance and the amount in deposit shall be treated as towards the fine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-