IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/2ND POUSHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 390 of 2001 ( ) ------------------------------- CC.468/1989 OF of J.M.F.C.,CHITTUR CRA.133/1997 OF II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT,PALAKKAD REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ARAVINDAKSHAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR, UNNIKANDATH HOUSE, CHITTUR. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL. R2: THE CHITTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO. 18, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. (ADDITIONAL SECOND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5.4.2010 IN CRL. M.A. 11014/2009). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA. ADDL.R2 BY ADVOCATES M/S. G.HARIHARAN & PRAVEEN.H. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. 390 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 23rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2011. O R D E R The revision petitioner, who was the Branch Manager of the Chittoor Service Co-operative Bank, was prosecuted by the Station House Officer, Chittoor Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 477A and 409 of the Indian Penal Code with an allegation that the revision petitioner forged documents of the Bank and using the forged documents as genuine, committed misappropriation and breach of trust in respect of an amount of Rs. 9,000/-. The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittoor, before whom the revision petitioner was prosecuted, after a full-fledged trial, arrived at a finding of guilt. Consequently, the revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each for offences under Sections 467 and 468 IPC. For the offence under Section 477A he was slapped with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence under Section 408 IPC he was awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, he preferred Crl.A. 133 of 1997 before the Sessions Judge, Palakkad. The Additional CRL. R.P. 390/2001 2 Sessions Judge, Palakkad, to whom the criminal appeal was later made over, by judgment dated 3.3.2001, concurred with the trial court. Consequently, while confirming the conviction and sentence, the appeal was dismissed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition is filed. 2. On 20.12.2011 when the revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not assailing the conviction and that the revision petition is confined to the sentence only. The submission is recorded. He sought for leniency stating that the revision petitioner is aged 61 years and is suffering from psoriasis with peripheral neuropathy and Para paresis and he is not in a position to walk without assistance and external support. In support of his argument, a medical certificate issued by the Consultant Physician, Taluk Hospital, Chittoor, was produced. To ascertain the genuineness of the submission, the revision petitioner was directed to appear in person. Accordingly, he appeared in person. He is found disabled and walking with a support. The defacto complainant, through Advocate Sri. G. Hariharan, submitted that the revision petitioner misappropriated much more amount, for realization of which an arbitration proceeding was launched and that an award for CRL. R.P. 390/2001 3 realization of a sum of Rs. 82,173.50 is passed and that the award is not so far satisfied. Therefore, the learned counsel was directed to produce the copy of the award. Copy of the award was accordingly produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the award, would submit that the award is against five others and that the revision petitioner is not liable for the entire amount. It is seen that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. It is also submitted that the said award is not challenged so far. However, I do not think that in this revision petition, this court shall sit in execution of the award. 3. Taking into account of the physical condition of the revision petitioner, 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 the fine as imposed by the trial court and a direction to remit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the defacto complainant as compensation would meet the ends of justice. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the substantive sentence for all offences is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court with direction to deposit Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) before the trial court as compensation to be paid to the defacto complainant. In default to remit the CRL. R.P. 390/2001 4 compensation, revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. The fine imposed by the trial court is sustained with respective default sentence. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the compensation amount. The compensation amount shall be paid to the defacto complainant and it should be credited to the amount due as per the arbitration award. P.S. GOPINATHAN, knc/- CRL. R.P. 390/2001 5 P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. 390 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED: 23rd DECEMBER, 2011. O R D E R