IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3754 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ CRA.539/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA CC.832/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- SHIBU VARGHESE, AGED 35 YEARS, PROPRIETOR,ROYAL ENTERPRISES, ANJILIVILAYIL VEEDU, CHENNITHALA P.O., MANNAR. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.THARA THAMBAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LALIKUMAR MATHEW, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. K.M. MATHEW, KOLLAMPARAMBIL VEEDU, THONAKKADU MURI, CHEIRYANAD VILLAGE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3754 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the complainant in C.C.832 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.55,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Mavelikkara in Crl.A.539 of 2006. 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 revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and is only seeking modification of sentence. Revision petitioner filed Crl.M.A.11557 of 2008 stating that he is not challenging the conviction. 3. Judgment of learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge establish that evidence was properly appreciated and it is proved by the evidence that Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.55,000/- dated 4.8.2004 was issued by the revision petitioner towards repayment of Rs.55,000/- CRRP 3754/2008 2 borrowed earlier. It is also proved that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent has complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the only question is with regard to 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. Interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court with adequate compensation to second respondent. 5. Revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of petitioner under Section 138 of N.I.Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.60,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, Rs.56,000/- to be paid to second respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is granted three months time from today to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before learned Magistrate on 21.2.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-