IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 403 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRA.715/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CC.209/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------- PAYAS THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, CHOWVATTUKUNNEL, MOONILEVU.P.O., KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------- 1. BABU SYRIAC JAMES, PEMPILAKUNNEL, KALATHUKADAVU.P.O., KALATHUKADAVU 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R2 BY Public Prosecutor P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO. 403 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 2nd February 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.209/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions court, Kottayam in Crl.A.715/2006. Learned Sessions Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence on record and concurrent findings of fact revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and only seeks modification of sentence. 4. On going through the judgments of CRRP 403/09 2 courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- and issued Ext.P1 cheque towards its repayment. It was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is also established that first respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In such circumstance, conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the question is regarding sentence. Learned Magistrate sentenced revision petitioner to simple imprisonment for four months and compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with default sentence of two months. Learned Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence. So long as the sentence is not altered or modified against the interest of first respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to first respondent. As per the sentence confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, first respondent is to get a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that revision petitioner is in jail, CRRP 403/09 3 interest of justice will be met, if sentence is modified with adequate compensation to first respondent. 6. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified to simple imprisonment for four days and fine of Rs.3,50,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for four months. On realisation of fine it is to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) (b) of Code of Civil Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.