IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1095 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.94/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT NO.III (ADHOC), MANJERI CC.47/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, PERINTHALMANNA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------- ANAND P, S/O.C.V.KRISHNATHARAKAN CHANDATH HOUSE, (GOVINDHA NIVAS) ANGADIPURAM AMSOM, ANGADIPURAM P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.M.T.SHEEBA RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLATE/ACCUSED AND STATE: --------------- 1. PARUKUTTY M.K., D/O.NARAYANA NAIR MUTHALPARAYORATH KALATHIL HOUSE PUZHAKKATTIRI, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM KOCHI -31. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1095 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Respondent No.1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. There was also a direction for payment of compensation of Rupees two lakhs to the petitioner but without providing any default sentence. Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal against her conviction and sentence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge while confirming conviction and substantive sentence set aside direction for payment of compensation observing that civil remedy of the petitioner is not lost. Respondent No.1, aggrieved by her conviction and sentence of imprisonment filed Crl.R.P.No.916 of 2009 in this Court. That revision was disposed of at the admission stage modifying the substantive sentence but directing payment of compensation to the petitioner and providing default sentence. In this revision, petitioner challenges judgment of the appellate court to the extent that the direction for payment of compensation was set aside. In that judgment direction for payment of compensation was set aside. In view of the disposal of Crl.R.P.No.916 of 2009, petitioner cannot have any further grievance in the matter. Learned counsel for Crl.R.P.No.1095/2009 2 petitioner submits that petitioner is not pursuing this revision in the light of disposal of Crl.R.P.No.916 of 2009. In these circumstances this revision is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks