IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 352 of 2009()
1. LEKSHMANAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RATHEESAN, AGED 41, S/O.BALAN PILLAI,
... Respondent
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :30/01/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
Crl.R.P. NO. 352 OF 2009
===========================
Dated this the 30th day of January,2009
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused and
first respondent the complainant in
C.C.108/2005 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate-I, Haripad. Revision
petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the
offence under section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. Revision petitioner
challenged the conviction before Additional
Sessions Court, Mavelikara in Crl.A.59/2007.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge on
reappreciation of evidence confirmed the
conviction and modified the sentence to simple
imprisonment for three months and a
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default
simple imprisonment for two months. Revision
is filed challenging the conviction.
CRRP 352/2009 2
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 fact revision petitioner is not challenging the
conviction but sentence may be modified and time
may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay
the amount.
4. On going through the judgments of the
courts below, I find no reason to interfere with
the conviction.
5. The evidence of DW1 who was examined by the
revision petitioner himself establish that
revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from
first respondent and towards its repayment issued
Ext.P1 cheque which was dishonoured for want of
sufficient funds. It is also proved that first
respondent had complied with all statutory
formalities provided under section 138 and 142 of
Negotiable Instruments Act. Conviction of revision
CRRP 352/2009 3
petitioner for the offence under section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act is perfectly legal.
6. Then the only question is regarding the
sentence. The sentence modified by the learned
Sessions Judge is simple imprisonment for three
months and compensation which was the amount
covered by the dishonoured cheque with a default
sentence. So long as the sentence is not altered
or modified against the interest of first
respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to
first respondent. As per the modified sentence
first respondent is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/-.
7. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, interest of justice will
be met if the sentence is modified to imprisonment
till rising of court with a direction to pay the
fine on realisation to first respondent as
compensation.
Revision is allowed in part. Conviction of
CRRP 352/2009 4
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
a fine of Rs.1,05,000/- and in default simple
imprisonment for two months. On realisation of
fine, Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to first respondent
as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. Revision petitioner is
directed to appear before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate-I, Haripad on 1.6.2009.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006