IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4033 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.302/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.1382/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SOMAN K.P, S/O.,PADMANABHAN PLAMAPRAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUVILE MURI, NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 2. JAGADAMMA RAJAPPAN PADINJAREPARAMBIL HOUSE,MUTHOOR P.O.,THIRUVALLA. BY PP SRI C M KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 4033 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the complainant in S.T.1382 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.95,000/-. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.302 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. 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 courts below and evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but the substantive sentence may be modified and revision petitioner may be granted time 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 sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.95,000/- in discharge of the existing CRRP 4033/2008 2 liability and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent sent a notice demanding the amount but revision petitioner did not pay the same, Evidence also establish that second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the question is with regard to the sentence. So long as sentence is not varied or modified against the interest of second respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to second respondent. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is sufficiently modified. 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 and a fine of Rs.95,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to second respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. He is directed to appear before learned Magistrate on 18.3.2009. CRRP 4033/2008 3 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-