IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 372 of 2004() ----------------------------- CRA.437/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, NORTH PARAVUR CC.604/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.O.DAVIS, KEEZHETHAN HOUSE, THATTANPADY, NEAR TRIPTHY RICE MILL, KANGOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. MANOJ ANTONY, S/O. P.M.ANTONY, PUTHEN HOUSE, PARTNER, SURYA ROCK PRODUCTS, NEELEESWARAM, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.372 OF 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd August, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor in C.C.604/1998. Though petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Additional Sessions court, North Paravur in Crl.A.437/2002, learned Additional Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard. CRRP 372/04 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence and concurrent conviction, petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but the sentence may be modified. It is submitted that as directed by this court, while suspending the sentence petitioner has already deposited Rs.20,000/- and this may be adjusted towards the compensation and substantive sentence may be modified. 4. Evidence of PW1 establishes that petitioner purchased crusher metal from the first respondent and issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.32,858/- on 30/10/1997 towards the payment and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Evidence also establish that first respondent has complied with all the statutory formalities. On the evidence, both CRRP 372/04 3 the courts below rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 5. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for three months in addition to compensation for the sum covered by the dishonoured cheque. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, interest of justice will be met, if sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and adequate compensation to the first respondent. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and compensation to Rs.35,000/- to be paid to CRRP 372/04 4 first respondent and in default simple imprisonment for one month. If petitioner has deposited any amount before the Magistrate, he need only deposit the balance. Petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor on 16/8/2010. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.