IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1419 of 2006(B) -------------------------------------------- CRL.A.300/2001 OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-IV, TRIVANDRUM, CC.229/1998 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V, TRIVANDRUM. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VARGHESE JACOB, S/O. P.G.CHACKO, POTHARICAN BUILDINGS, NEAR K.S.R.T.C. BUS STATION, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW SIMON, KULATHAKAL, T.C.26/2099, TUTORS LANE, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU, R1 BY ADV. SRI.EGY.N.ELIAS, ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 1419 OF 2006 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.229 of 1998 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months and a cost of Rs.1000/-. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.300 of 2001. Learned Additional 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. 3. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but sentence may be modified and he may be granted four months time to pay the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. 4. Though petitioner contended that Ext.P1 cheque was not issued towards the payment of any legally recoverable debt, courts below on evidence found that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards the amount due consequent to the settlement of four other cheque cases CRRP 1419/2006 2 and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and in spite of notice demanding the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, petitioner did not pay. 5. On going through the judgments of courts below, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction as it is proved that cheque was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and all statutory formalities were complied with. Hence conviction for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 6. Then the only question is with regard to sentence. Ext.P1 cheque is for Rs.2,00,000/-. Interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine. Hence revision petition is allowed in part. Sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.2,10,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. On realisation of fine, Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is granted four months time from today to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, on 17.3.2009. If petitioner has deposited any amount before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram in this case, he need deposit only the balance and first respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount CRRP 1419/2006 3 in deposit, as part payment towards the compensation. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-