IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3899 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.200/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.1400/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- RAMESH K.B., VATTAKKALA HOUSE PARIYARAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. LAJI C.THOMAS CHANGAYIL HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O.,MALLAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PP SRI C M NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 3899 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.1400 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.89,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.200 of 2007. 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 in view of the concurrent findings of courts below and evidence on record, revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but the substantive sentence may be modified. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.89,000/- and towards its repayment, issued Ext.P1 cheque dated CRRP 3899/2008 2 3.11.2003 and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It is also proved that first respondent had 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 entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met, if the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.90,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to first respondent as compensation. 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. Revision petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and a fine of Rs.90,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. On realisation of fine, it is to be paid to first respondent as compensation under Section 357 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. He is directed to appear before learned CRRP 3899/2008 3 Magistrate on 20.2.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-