IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3685 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.204/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.1161/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------ C.K. ANDREWS VALLATTUVARAMALA HOUSE SOUTH PAMPADY.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. MR.GEORGE K. JACOB, MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM. SRI. RITHWIK PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3685 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 ORDER The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Kottayam in S.T.No.1161 of 2006 on his file convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months. Being aggrieved, the revision petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2008. By judgment dated 17/6/2009, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam dismissed the appeal. Now this revision. 2. When the revision petition came up for admission, 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 is a man aged 48 years and without any avocation and that the case arose out of an ordinary money transaction and because of the poverty he couldn't pay the amount. In the circumstance the revision petitioner is entitled to leniency in sentence. I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel. Since the lower court had not awarded compensation, for that reason also, Crl.R.P.No.3685 of 2009 2 sentence requires modification. I find that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court with direction to pay cheque amount as compensation to the second respondent would meet the ends of justice. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction under challenge, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. He is directed to pay Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the 2nd respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, failing which the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation. Till then, the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.