IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4065 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRA.403/2006 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.696/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REV.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- P.SASIDHARAN, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, PERUNGOTTUKUNNIL, MALAMALAKALATHIL, MALAMALAMOKKU, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): IST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/2ND RESPONDENT/NON-PART ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, THENARIPARAMBU, SANTHI TILES FACTORY, THRIPPALLUR, ERIMAYUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 4065 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner is the accused and first respondent, the complainant in C.C.676 of 2004 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alathur. Revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a compensation of Rs.80,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for three months. Petitioner challenged the conviction before Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad in Crl.A.403 of 2006. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction but modified the sentence to the extent of deleting the default sentence for the compensation, maintaining the substantive sentence. 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. Though notice was served on first respondent, he did not appear. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the CRRP 4065/2008 2 conviction. Evidence establish that revision petitioner issued Ext.P1 cheque towards discharge of existing liability and the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and 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. Ext.P1 cheque is for Rs.75,000/-. 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.80,000/- 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.80,000/- 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. Revision petitioner is granted two months time to pay the fine. He is directed to appear before learned Magistrate on 17.2.2009. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-