IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 114 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.584/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CC.278/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- -------------------------------------- ASHOKAN, S/O. RAMANUJAN, AGED 41 YEARS, PUTHENKATTIL VEEDU, PERUMPALLY MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:- ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JAYAKUMAR, S/O. PURUSHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, JAYABHAVANAM VEEDU, KANDALLUR THEKKU MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 114 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in C.C.278 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikara in Crl. Appeal 584 of 2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner filed Crl.M.A.12843 of 2008 stating that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of fact and the evidence on record revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but the sentence may be modified. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the CRRP 114/2009 2 judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment. It is also proved that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. 4. So long as the sentence is not varied or modified against the interest of second respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to second respondent. As per the sentence confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, second respondent is entitled to get compensation for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Considering the entire 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 with a direction to pay the compensation out of the fine realised to second respondent. 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 petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.1,30,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, CRRP 114/2009 3 Rs.1,25,000/- to be paid to second respondent as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam on 10.3.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb