IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3703 of 2008() -------------------------------------------- CRA.60/2007 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.172/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ ACCUSED ------------------------------- REFEEQUE.P.P, S/O.PAREED, PUTHUKADAN, PERUMBAVOOR.P.O. BY ADV. MR.AYPE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDEN/ COMPLAINANT ------------------------- 1. SMT.LATHA.K.S, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.ASSOCIATED CHEMICALS, BALAKRISHNA MENON ROAD, EDAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS.MR.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN, MR.T.NIKLAVU. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3703 of 2008. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner was found guilty for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months with direction to pay Rs.59,850/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs to the first respondent, who prosecuted the revision petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- II, Aluva, in CC.No.172/2004. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner took up the matter in Crl.Appeal No.60/2007 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The IIIrd Addl.Sessions Judge to whom the appeal was made over concurred with the lower court in finding the revision petitioner guilty. However, the substantial sentence was reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.one lakh, out of which Rs.98,000/- was ordered to be paid to the first respondent as compensation under Crl.R.P.No.3703 of 2008. -: 2 :- Sec.357(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not assailing the conviction as well as the substantial sentence but, he is assailing only the fine imposed. According to the learned counsel, the fine imposed is too high and that the appellate court fixed the fine amount on calculating interest. Appeal against conviction is not an execution proceedings of a civil court decree to calculate interest precisely and to determine the fine amount. In a criminal case, what is appropriate is to give a reasonable compensation and nothing more. Though the fine imposed is within the statutory limit, taking into account that the cheque amount was only for Rs.59,850/-, I find that there is a little merit in the submission and that a fine of Rs.75,000/- and paying that much amount as Crl.R.P.No.3703 of 2008. -: 3 :- compensation would meet the ends of justice. In the event the first respondent has more claim including interest, she would be at liberty to approach the civil court. 3. In the result, while confirming the conviction and the substantial sentence, the fine is reduced to Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy-five thousand only) with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. The revision petitioner is granted two months time to remit the fine which on realisation shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation under Sec.357(1) of the Crl.P.C. Till the expiry of time to remit the fine, the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. The amount, if any, deposited shall be given credit to. The revision petition is disposed of as above. P.S.GOPINATHAN (Judge) Kvs/-