IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3755 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.367/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), KASARAGOD CC.119/2000 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SEBASTIAN PHILIP, S/O.PHILIP, KAYAMAKAL HOUSE, CHITTARIKKAL, VIA NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. SHASIBHUSAN, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF MAHARASHTRA APEX, CORPORATION LTD., KASARAGOD BRANCH, KASARAGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN,J. ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3755 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 ORDER The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod in C.C.No.119 of 2000 on his file convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2,55,000/- with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In Criminal Appeal No.367 of 2003, the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod confirmed the conviction. The substantive sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month. Now this revision petition. 2. The learned counsel 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 could not discharge the liability because of his financial difficulties and in the above circumstance, leniency may be shown to him in the case of sentencing. Taking into account of the entire circumstances, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to a little more leniency. Crl.R.P.No.3755 of 2009 2 In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.2,55,000/- with a default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to remit the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE skj