IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3841 of 2008() ---------------------------------------------- CRA.NO.568/2005 OF ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC III), KOLLAM. C.C.1592/05 OF THE J.F.C.M.COURT I, KOLLAM. ..... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- B.MURALEEDHARAN,S/O BHASKARAN, PEON, CANARA BANK, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH, RESIDING AT BHASKARA BHAVAN, ELAMPALLOOR,P.O. KUNDARA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. N.OMANAKUTTAN, PULARI, KOIVILA PO., ELAVUMOODU, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU - R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3841 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the complainant in C.C.1592 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kollam. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions Court, Kollam in Crl.A.568 of 2005. Learned Additional 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 revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but only modification of the substantive sentence. So long as sentence is not varied or modified against the interest of second respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to second respondent. 3. Learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge appreciated the evidence in the proper perspective. On the evidence, it is established that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner towards repayment of Rs.1,00,000/- borrowed earlier. It is also CRRP 3841/2008 2 proved that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second respondent complied with all the statutory formalities provided under Section 138 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 only question is regarding the sentence. Interest of justice will be met, if sentence is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to second respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 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. Petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to second respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. On the request of learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner, revision petitioner is permitted to pay the fine directly to second respondent and produce the receipt before learned Magistrate. Petitioner is granted three months time from today to pay the fine. Petitioner is directed to appear before learned Magistrate on 2.3.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-