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. 4105 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.94/2006 of ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.390/2003 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------ VARGHESE SAMUEL ,AGED 45 YEARS NELLIMOOTTIL BUILDINGS, IST FLOOR THAZHE VETTIPPURAM, MUNDUKOTTACKAL PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.J.JOSE,S/O.JOSE KOTTOPPILLETHU HOUSE, ATTARIKAM OMALLOOR P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M NAZAR SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR R1 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. 4105 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.390 of 2003 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta. Revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Conviction was challenged before Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.94 of 2006. 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 and first respondent were heard. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner 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 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. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.20,000/- from first respondent and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and CRRP 4105/2008 2 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. Ext.P1 cheque is for Rs.20,000/-. Petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is modified to fine with a direction to pay compensation to first respondent. 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 a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, Rs.22,000/- to be paid to first respondent as compensation. Revision petitioner is permitted to pay the fine within two months from today. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-