IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4032 of 2008()
1. SOMAN.K.P, S/O.PADMANABHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. AISWARYA TRADERS,VAIPUR,
For Petitioner :SRI.AJITH MURALI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :12/12/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRL.R.P.NO. 4032 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused and second respondent, the
complainant in S.T.4142 of 2003 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Thiruvalla. Petitioner was convicted for the offence under
Section 138 of N.I.Act. Petitioner challenged the conviction before
Additional Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta in Crl.A.236 of 2007.
Learned 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 courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the
conviction or the sentence. Evidence establish that revision petitioner
issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.5950/- in discharge of legal liability,and
the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and second
respondent had complied with all the statutory formalities provided
CRRP 4032/2008 2
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 second
respondent, it is not necessary to issue notice to second respondent.
Considering the fact that the amount covered by the cheque is only
Rs.5950/-, the sentence as confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, viz,
simple imprisonment for one month in addition to a compensation of
Rs.10,000/- is excessive. Interest of justice will be met, if the
sentence is sufficiently modified.
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.10,000/- 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. Petitioner is directed to appear
before learned Magistrate on 17.2.2009.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-