IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2010 / 5TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2565 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.677/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, TRIVANDRUM ST.407/2007 of the JFCM COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ----------------------------------------------- B.PRASENAN, AGED 47, S/O.K.K.BHANU, PUSHPAMANGALAM, KALAYANADU, PLACHERY, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. M.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, NILAVU, ARAMPUNNA, ELAMPAL PO,.PUNALUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 322.(WORKING AS DRIVER HIEWS,HINDUSTAN LATEX,TRIVANDRUM) 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2565 of 2010. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-VII, Thiruvananthapuram in ST.No.407/2006 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for eight months and a fine of Rs.two lakhs with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for four months. Being aggrieved he preferred Crl.Appeal No.677/2007. By judgment dated 30.4.2010, the Addl.Sessions Judge, Adhoc-II, Thiruvananthapuram dismissed the appeal. Now, this revision petition. 2. Today, when the revision petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not assailing the conviction, but the sentence is assailed. According to the learned counsel, the Crl.R.P.No.2565 of 2010. -: 2 :- revision petitioner is a contractor, aged 48 years on the date of transaction and that financial difficulty led him to face the prosecution and he is prepared to discharge the liabilty provided some breathing time is given. With this plea, the learned counsel sought for lenient sentence. The submission made by the learned counsel is recorded. Having due regard to the nature of the transaction, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to a little leniency in sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of Rs.2,05,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 3. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.2,05,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and five thousand only). In default of payment of fine the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. In the event of deposit of fine, Rs.two lakhs shall be paid to the Crl.R.P.No.2565 of 2010. -: 3 :- first respondent as compensation under Sec.357(1) of the Crl.PC. The revision petitioner is granted six moths time to deposit the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. The amount, if any paid, shall be given credit to. P.S.GOPINATHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-