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. 3792 OF 2010() ------------------------------------------- CRA.254/2007 OF III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.2934/2003 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------- PAPPUKUNJ ANTONY, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, ERUMATHALA P.O., CHUNANGANVELI, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.KURIAN JOSEPH (ARAKKUNNAM), SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.G. SAJEEV, KAVITHA HOUSE, MUDAVOOR, VAZHAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA, PINCODE-686 669. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. MR.SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO. 3792 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. O R D E R The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Muvattupuzha, in C.C. No. 2934 of 2003 convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months with a direction to pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation to the first respondent. In Criminal Appeal 254 of 2007, the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, while confirming the conviction, modified the sentence and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 75,000/- with default sentence. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence this revision petition was filed. 2. Sri. Kurian Joseph, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is only seeking time to remit the fine. The submission is recorded. The revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to deposit the fine. 3. Though the trial court has awarded compensation, there is no order in the appellate judgment to pay compensation to the first respondent. CRL. R.P. 3792/2010 2 It appears that it is an omission on the side of the Appellate Judge. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has no objection in paying compensation out of the fine amount. Hence it is ordered that the fine amount, if realised, shall be given to the first respondent as compensation. In the event the amount is deposited or directly paid on proper receipt, that shall be given credit to. P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-