IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4016 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.69/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.474/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- LALITHAMMA C.D. @ LALITHA, AGED 51 YEARS RESIDING AT "PRIYADARSHINI" KOMALLOOR P.O MAVELIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SURESHKUMAR V.,S/O.N.VASU, SURESH BHAVANAM, PALLICKAL NADUVILE MURI, PALLICKAL P.O., KAYAMKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVEEENDRA BABU FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO. 4016 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent the complainant in C.C. 474 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. She challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions Court, Mavelikkara in Crl.Appeal 69 of 2007. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.1,59,000/-. Revision is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence on record and the concurrent findings of the facts, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction, but sentence may be modified and revision petitioner may be CRRP4016/2008 2 granted four months time to pay the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. 4. On going through the judgments of the Courts below, I find no reason the interfere. Evidence establish that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by revision petitioner towards repayment of Rs.1,59,000/-. It is also proved that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. It is further proved that second respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the only 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 him. Interest of justice will be met if the sentence is modified directing to pay compensation to second respondent. Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is confirmed. Sentence is modified. Revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and a fine of Rs.1,60,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two CRRP4016/2008 3 months. On realisation of fine, Rs.1,59,000/- to be paid to second respondent as compensation under section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted four months time from today to pay the fine. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 16.4.2009. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-