IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DECEMBER 2011 / 9TH POUSHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3089 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.78/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD ST.1396/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- MUHAMMAD ASLAM, S/O. LATE HASSAN HAJI, ATHINHAL, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: --------------- 1. V.MANOJKUMAR, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN, POOCHAKKAD, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 671121. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.R.RANJITH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.12.2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3089 OF 2011 ----------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of December, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.1396/2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class-II, Hosdurg. He was prosecuted by the 1st respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial he was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month with direction to pay rupees six lakhs as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though he preferred Criminal Appeal 78/2010 before the Sessions Judge, Kasaragod he was not successful. Now assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this Revision Petition is preferred. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is not assailing the conviction and the revision is confined to the sentence alone. According to the learned counsel, the liability arose out of a business transaction and that the petitioner is aged 55 years and that the financial difficulties led him to face the Crl.R.P.No.3089/2011 2 prosecution. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner is entitled to leniency in sentence. 3. Having gone through the judgments impugned, I find merit in the submission and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to pay the compensation would meet the ends of justice. 4. In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The order to pay compensation with default sentence is sustained. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to remit the compensation. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/30/12