IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3229 of 2008(C) -------------------------------------------- CRA.114/2007 OF SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- K.PADMANABHAN, AMBADY, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SADASIVAN, THODATHILAYIL, HARIHARAKRIPA, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU, R1 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3229 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision Petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.167 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.114 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. Revision petition is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and first respondent were heard. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that as directed by this court, he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- before learned Magistrate and considering the fact that revision petitioner is an employee of Indian Railways, sentence may be modified to fine. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent opposed the application. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of courts below, I find no illegality in the conviction. CRRP 3229/2008 2 Evidence establish that petitioner issued the cheque in question towards repayment of a legally recoverable debt and when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Evidence also establish that first respondent has complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of petitioner is perfectly legal and proper. 4. Then the only question is with regard to sentence. Learned Sessions Judge modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months with a direction to pay the fine, on realisation, as compensation to first respondent. Ext.P1, the dishonoured cheque is for Rs.1,00,000/- which was issued on 30.12.2002. Considering the fact that petitioner has already deposited the fine awarded by learned Sessions Judge, interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is modified to a fine instead of imprisonment till rising of court. 5. Revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Petitioner is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,10,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one month. On realisation of fine, Rs.1,05,000/- is to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. If CRRP 3229/2008 3 petitioner has already deposited any amount before learned Magistrate, he need deposit only the balance. Petitioner to deposit the fine amount within one month from today. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-