IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3797 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- CRL.A.NO.1009/2005 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), THRISSUR, CC.NO.50/2001 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERY. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- PRAVEEN, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, PROPRIETOR, ROHIT TRADERS, EROOR SOUTH, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.V.A.OMANAKUTTAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUN PLASTIC, CHELAKARA, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MURALI MOHANAN, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, PULANCHERY HOUSE, KRISHNA VIHAR, VENGENELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. RITHWIK. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3797 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Wadakkanchery in CC.No.50/2001 on his file for offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs.59,299/- as compensation to the second respondent under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Criminal Appeal No.1009/2005, the Addl.Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Thrissur confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now this revision. 2. Today, when the revision petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that he is not assailing the conviction, but the sentence is assailed. The learned counsel would submit that the liability arose out of a business transaction and that because of the financial difficulties the revision petitioner has to face the prosecution and in the peculiar Crl.R.P.No.3797 of 2009. -: 2 :- circumstance he deserves leniency in sentence. I find that the submission deserves consideration and that imprisonment till rising of the Court with order to pay compensation to the 2nd respondent would meet the ends of justice. 3. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction the substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Court with order to pay Rs.59,299/- as compensation to the second respondent. In the event of default of payment of compensation, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay compensation. Till then, the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-