IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3818 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.326/2007 of ADD.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT III, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.205/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------- JAMES SKARIA, INDIKATTIL (H), VAKAYAR P.O., KONNI, PATTANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP MATHEW ABRAHAM SRI.C.ARUN PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE THOMAS, CHALLACKL HOUSE, POOVANPARA, KONNI,PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3818 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 26th day of November,2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in S.T.205/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.4,35,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months with a direction to pay the fine on realisation to the first respondent as compensation. Petitioner challenged the conviction before the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.326/2007. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the CRRP3818/2008 2 petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction. But sentence may be modified and time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the fine. 4. On hearing the counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence of PW1 establish that petitioner borrowed Rs.4,35,000/- from first respondent and towards its repayment issued Ext.P1 cheque drawn in his account and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when it was presented for encashment. Evidence also establish that first respondent has complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the 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 first respondent, CRRP3818/2008 3 it is not necessary to issue notice to first respondent. Learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to simple imprisonment for six months in addition to a fine for the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque and directed that fine on realisation to be paid to first respondent as compensation. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the same. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met if the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.4,40,000/-and in default simple imprisonment for three months. On realisation of fine, Rs.4,35,000/- is to be paid to first respondent as compensation. On the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is granted six months time from today to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 28.5.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE CRRP3818/2008 4 tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006