IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3919 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.469/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI ST.4168/2003 of Munsiff Magistrate, Ponnani .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.K.EDISON, 42 YEARS, S/O.K.V.LASER KARLADI HOUSE, CHOVVANNUR PO., KUNNAMANKALAM, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. N.I.CHANDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, NAMBIDIYATTEL HOUSE PO.MOOKKUTHALA, VADAKKUMMURI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. By PP SRI C M KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3919 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in S.T.4168 of 2003 on the file of Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Ponnani. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Manjeri in Crl.A.469 of 2006. 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 courts below and evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction and is only seeking modification of sentence and sufficient time to pay the fine. 3. 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. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner for Rs.2,00,000/- towards repayment of the loan obtained earlier. Evidence also establish that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and first respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 CRRP 3919/2008 2 and 142 of N.I.Act. Conviction of petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act is perfectly legal. 4. Then the question is with regard to the sentence. Ext.P1 cheque is dated 9.6.2003 and is for Rs.2,00,000/-. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court with adequate compensation to first respondent. 5. Revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of petitioner 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.2,00,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner is granted four months time from today to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before learned Magistrate on 7.4.2009. If petitioner has deposited any amount in this case earlier before the Magistrate, he need deposit only the balance. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-