IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4032 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.236/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.4142/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SOMAN.K.P, S/O.PADMANABHAN, PLAMAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUVILE MURI, NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. AISWARYA TRADERS,VAIPUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.V.THOMAS,MANNARNVELIL HOUSE VAIPUR,MALLAPPALLY. BY PP SRI AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 4032 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the complainant in S.T.4142 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.236 of 2007. 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 was heard. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of courts below and evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but the substantive sentence may be modified. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.5950/- in discharge of legal liability,and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided CRRP 4032/2008 2 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. So long as sentence is not varied or modified against the interest of second respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to second respondent. Considering the fact that the amount covered by the cheque is only Rs.5950/-, the sentence as confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, viz, simple imprisonment for one month in addition to a compensation of Rs.10,000/- is excessive. Interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is sufficiently modified. 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 imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to second respondent as compensation under Section 357 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is directed to appear before learned Magistrate on 17.2.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-