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. 3865 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.298/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), TRIVANDRUM CC.949/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VARKALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- BALACHANDRAN, S/O.SWAMINATHAN, SIVAMANGALAM, NEAR GOVT.BOY'S HIGH SCHOOL, CHITTATINKARA DESOM, ATTINGAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- 1. N.RAJAN, KALLUVILA VEEDU, CHERUNNIYOOR VILLAGE, DALAVAPURAM CHERUNNIYOOR.PO, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C M KAMAPPU SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR FOR R1 SMT.NIKHILA SOMAN FOR R1 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. 3865 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.949 of 2003 on the file of Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Varkala. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and a compensation of Rs.55,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.298 of 2005. 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. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the concurrent findings of courts below and evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but sentence may be modified and time may be granted to pay the amount. 3. On going through the judgment of courts below, it is clear that the evidence was appreciated in the proper perspective. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- and towards its repayment, issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 17.3.2003 and the CRRP 3865/2008 2 cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had 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 question is with regard to the sentence. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that considering the nature of the offence, the substantive sentence may be avoided. Interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court in addition to a fine with a direction to pay the fine to first respondent as compensation. 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.58,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, Rs.55,000/- is to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is granted two months time from today to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before learned Magistrate on 19.2.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-