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. 3876 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.611/2002 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THALASSERY CC.458/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SIBY VETTAM, S/O. DOMANIC, PROPRIETOR VETTAM CHITS LTD, SREEKANDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP, BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KARUNAKARAN VAIDYAR, S/O KORAN, SIVANANDA WOOD INDUSTRIES KARUMATHOOR AMSOM, KARUMATHOOR P.O PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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. 3876 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the complainant in C.C.458 of 1998 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Taliparamba. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for seven months and a compensation of Rs.33,000/-. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Taliparamba in Crl.A.611 of 2002. Learned Additional 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 though contended that there is no evidence to prove that second respondent was a subscriber to the chitty, submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of 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. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Though second respondent did not produce the passbook CRRP 3876/2008 2 to establish that he was a subscriber to the chitty, learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence of PW1, found that second respondent was a subscriber to the chitty conducted by revision petitioner and he had prized the chitty and Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards that amount. It is also proved that the cheque was dishonoured for 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. 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 the entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of Rs.33,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. 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 compensation of Rs.33,000/-. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the fine. He is CRRP 3876/2008 3 directed to appear before learned Magistrate on 21.4.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-