IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4210 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.26/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA STC.181/2006 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KALPETTA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- K.G.MURALEEDHARAN CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, SUB DEPOT, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- PRASAD.T.S, MOHAN ESTATE, CHUZHALI, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. 4210 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and respondent the complainant in S.T. 181 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalpetta. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.90,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one month. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Wayanad in Crl. Appeal 26 of 2007. Learned 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 and the evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but sentence may be modified and three months' time may be granted to pay the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the CRRP 4210/2008 2 judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that towards repayment of Rs.86,500/- revision petitioner issued Exts.P1 and P2 cheques respectively for Rs.35,000/- and Rs.51,500/- drawn in his account maintained in Kalpetta branch of State Bank of Travancore and the cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also proved that respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable instruments Act. In such circumstances conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. So long as the sentence is not varied or modified against the interest of respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent. The sentence awarded provides for a compensation of Rs.90,000/- to the respondent. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met if the sentence is modified providing compensation to the 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.95,000/- and in CRRP 4210/2008 3 default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, Rs.91,000/- is to be paid to the respondent as compensation under section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 3.4.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb