IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4060 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.300/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.392/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, GEETHA BHAVAN, VAYYATTUPUZHA P.O., CHITTUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. KATTUPURAYIDAM BANKERS, PAZHAVANGADI, RANNI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, R. CHANDRACHOODAN NAIR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 4060 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C.392 of 2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl. Appeal 300 of 2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of the fact revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but he may be granted two months time to pay the compensation. 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence CRRP4060/2008 2 establish that revision petitioner received the amount from first respondent and towards the discharge of the liability issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.93,000/-, which was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, when the cheque was presented for encashment. It is also proved that first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 is perfectly legal and warrants no interference. 5. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. 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 fine of Rs.93,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it shall be paid to first respondent as compensation under section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Revision CRRP4060/2008 3 petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.93,000/- to be paid within two months from today and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to first respondent as compensation under section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-