IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 191 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.210/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM CC.1015/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- T.P.GANGADHARAN NAIR, THAKIDIKAL HOUSE, TEERTHAPADAPURAM.P.O., VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. T.A.BABY, THALIYONIL HOUSE, KORUTHODU.P.O., ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO. 191 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 19th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the complainant in C.C.1015/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally. Revision petitioner was sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction was challenged before Sessions court, Kottayam in Crl.A.210/2008. 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 submitted that in view of the evidence on record and concurrent findings fact revision petitioner is not challenging conviction but sentence may be modified and revision petitioner may be granted time to make payment. CRRP 191/09 2 4. On going through the judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.20,000/- and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment. It was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also established that second 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. So long as the sentence is not altered or modified against the interest of second respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to second respondent. As per the sentence confirmed by learned Sessions Judge second respondent is to get a compensation of Rs.20,000/- which is the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met, if sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and fine with a direction to pay compensation, out of the fine realised CRRP 191/09 3 to second 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.25,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine Rs.20,000/- is to be paid to second respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Code of Civil Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay compensation. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kanjirappally on 19/5/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.