IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3813 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- CRA.30/2008 OF FOURTH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC II) THODUPUZHA ST.72/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANOJ.R., PRASANTHI, 1ST FLOOR, TP/IV/610, ERUMBANAM.P.O., THIRUVAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU SRI.S.KANNAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & THE STATE --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.DATHAN, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, MARIYIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. 3813 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. O R D E R Revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - II, Thodupuzha, in S.T. 72/2007 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs. 1,40,000/- as compensation to the first respondent. In Crl. Appeal 30 of 2008, the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, confirmed the conviction as well as the sentence. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Advocate Sri. S. Kannan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not assailing the conviction but the sentence is assailed. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner has no avocation or any income and that the financial difficulty led him to face the prosecution. With that plea, the learned counsel sought for a lenient sentence. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as Sri. Jose Mathew, representing the first respondent, I find that there CRL. R.P. 3813/2010 2 is some merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of court with fine would meet the ends of justice. 4. In the result, while confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand). In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The fine, on realization, shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation. The revision petitioner is granted four months time to remit the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. In the event, the revision petitioner had made any direct payment to the first respondent on appropriate receipt, that shall be given credit to. The Criminal revision petition is disposed of as above. sd/- P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) // True copy // P.S. to Judge. knc/-