IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4124 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.293/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CC.790/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ ACCUSED --------------------------------------- T.RASHEED, S/O KHALID, PULSARAKATH HOUSE CITY, NEAR ATTAKA PALLI, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FAISAL, S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, BUSINESS BY PROFESSION, OASIS, THANA, KANNUR. BY PP SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2208, THE COURT ON 19/12/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 4124 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the complainant in C.C.790 of 1997 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Thalassery. 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 in view of the concurrent findings of the courts below and evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but considering the fact that the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque is only Rs.18,564/-, the sentence is excessive and it may be modified. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.18,564/- in discharge of existing liability and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities CRRP 4124/2008 2 provided under Section 138 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of revision 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 Magistrate sentenced petitioner to simple imprisonment for six months and a compensation of Rs.18,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence. Ext.P1 cheque is only for Rs.18,564/-. Rs.564/- is admittedly the interest portion. In such circumstances, the sentence awarded is excessive. Interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is sufficiently modified 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 a fine of Rs.19,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it shall be paid to second respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted three months time to pay the fine. He is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 20.3.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-