IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3454 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.954/2007 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.212/2006 of JFCM III, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- M.S.KRISHNANKUTTY, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, M.S.ASSOCIATES, PERUKAVU, PEYAD, VILAVOORKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR SRI.G.SURARSHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. MOHANAKUMAR, DEEPA BHAVAN, CHARUPARA, VITHURA P.O., THOLICODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROCECUTOR, SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jma P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3454 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Nedumangad in S.T.No.212 of 2006. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs.1,57,000/- as compensation to the first respondent who prosecuted the revision petitioner. In Criminal Appeal No.954 of 2007, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram, confirmed the conviction. The substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. At the same time the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/-. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Today when the revision petition came up for hearing, it is submitted that there is no justification by appellate court in enhancing the compensation and that may be reduced to the amount determined by the trial court and the revision Crl.R.P.No.3454 of 2009 2 petitioner may be granted ten months time to pay the compensation. He fairly conceded that though the revision petitioner adduced defence evidence he could not impeach the veracity of the testimony of PW.1. 3. In the above circumstance, I find that the conviction under challenge is unassailable. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction. As regards the sentence I find that there is some merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Without any justifying reason in the appeal by the accused, the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs.1,60,000/- from Rs.1,57,000/-. I find that the amount awarded by the trial court would meet the ends of justice. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction and sentence the compensation amount payable is reduced to Rs.1,57,000/-, the amount determined by the trial court. The default sentence ordered by the appellate court is sustained. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation amount. Till then the bond executed by him will remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj