IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 20 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRA.227/2005 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK I), TRIVANDRUM CC.283/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- THULASIDHARAN, S/O. SASIDHARAN, PADINJATTINKARA VEEDU, KALLARA VILLAGE, KALLARA DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR SRI.HARIKUMAR.S. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. RADHAKRISHNAN, K.P.7/54,KANNAN HOUSE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P.NO.20 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th January 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the complainant in C.C.283/03 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.60,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Revision petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions court, Thiruvananthapuram in Crl.A.227/05. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on re- appreciation of evidence confirmed the conviction and the sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner was heard. 3. Learned counsel, in view of evidence on record and concurrent findings of fact, submitted CRRP 20/09 2 that revision petitioner is not challenging the conviction but sentence may be modified. So long as sentence is not altered or modified against the interest of second respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to second respondent. As per the sentence awarded, second respondent was granted a compensation of Rs.60,000/-. The dishonoured cheque is for Rs.50,000/-. 4. On going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner borrowed Rs.50,000/- and towards its repayment Ext.P1 cheque was issued and it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds when presented for encashment. Second respondent had complied with all statutory formalities provided under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal. 5. Then the question is regarding the sentence. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met if the sentence CRRP 20/09 3 is modified to imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs.60,000/- 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 Criminal Procedure Code. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. 6. Revision petition is allowed in part. Conviction of revision 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 fine of Rs.60,000/- 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 Criminal Procedure Code. Revision petitioner is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal on 6/3/2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.