IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4076 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.564/2006 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.2981/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.P.BIJUKUMAR, S/O.PONNAPPAN, KALAPPARA HOUSE, CHERAD, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- 1. M/S.HEMAMBIKA HIRE PURCHASE AND LEASING PVT.LTD., PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER A.DIVAKARAN. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PP SRI C M NAZER THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 4076 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.2981 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.A.564 of 2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for 15 days and a fine of Rs.12,851/- with a direction to pay the same as compensation to first respondent. 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 courts below and evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but the sentence may be modified. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P2 cheque in discharge of legal liability of Rs.12,851/- and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had CRRP 4076/2008 2 complied with all the statutory formalities 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. So long as sentence is not varied or modified against the interest of first respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to first respondent. Considering the fact that the amount covered by the cheque is only Rs.12,851/-, interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is sufficiently modified to fine. 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 to a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, Rs.12,851/- to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted one month time to pay the fine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-