IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2990 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.73/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA CRA.644/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- N.P.SASEENDRAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, EDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, C.M.C. 2, CHERTHALA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SAJITH, S/O.HARIDAS, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUNELLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2990 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.73 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Cherthala. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate after due trial arrived a conclusion of guilt. Consequently the revision petitioner was convicted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.2,45,000/-. Being aggrieved, the matter was taken up in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Alappuzha. The learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 20/8/2009 in Crl.Appeal No.644/08 confirmed the conviction. The substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. The fine was reduced to Rs.2,00,000/- with default sentence to under go simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.2990 of 2009 2 When the revision petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the conviction and sentence are not assailed. But, he sought for some time for payment of the fine amount. 3. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed as not pressed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of fine provided he executes a bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with 2 solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court within 15 days. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE Skj.