IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 183 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.109/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA ST.9/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, HARIPAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------- BHASURAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, MANNANCHIRAYIL HOUSE, PANNOOR MURI, PALLANA P.O., THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. MOHAMMED KUNJU, S/O. ABDUL RAHIM KUNJU, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA P.O. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.183 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in S.T. 9 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Haripad. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.1,19,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for six months. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara in Crl. Appeal 109 of 2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of fact revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but the sentence may be modified and revision petitioner may be granted time to pay the amount. 3. From the judgments of the Courts below it is clear that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.1,19,000/-, the amount CRRP 183/2009 2 due under the transaction of purchase of fibre from second respondent. Evidence also establish that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstances conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the question is regarding the sentence. So long as the sentence is not varied or modified against the interest of second respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to second respondent. As per the sentence awarded by the Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge second respondent is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,19,000/-. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case interest of justice will be met if the sentence is modified to simple imprisonment for ten days and fine of Rs.1,20,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for three months. On realisation of fine Rs.1,19,000/- is to be paid to second respondent as compensation. Revision petitioner is granted four months time to pay the fine. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb