IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3838 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.276/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.120/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- R.RAJAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 58 YEARS, RUBBERUMKALAYIL HOUSE, MUDIMALA, PERUNADU. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------- 1. GOPINATHAN NAIR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, R-PERUNAD P.O., RANNI TALUK PIN 689711. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 3838 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent the complainant in C.C. 120 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranny. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl. Appeal 276 of 2007. Learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a direction to pay the same on realisation, to first respondent as compensation. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner is heard. Learned counsel did not challenge the conviction but sought only modification of sentence and also two months time to pay the fine. 3. So long as the sentence is not varied or modified against the interest of first respondent it is not necessary to CRRP3838/08 2 issue notice to first respondent. 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued towards discharge of Rs.1,00,000/- borrowed earlier. It is also proved that Ext.P1 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 Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Considering the nature of the offence and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met if the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of Court in addition to fine with a direction to pay compensation to first respondent. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.1,10,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to first respondent as compensation CRRP3838/08 3 under section 357(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is granted two months time from today to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 30.1.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-