IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3974 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.172/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.922/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- V.N.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE V.V.NARAYANAN KURUKKAL, KARAKKATT HOUSE, P.O.KADAVALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR SRI.V.V.JOY SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUDHEER.M.N, S/O.MANDOTHINKAL NARAYANAN, KANDANASSERY.P.O, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3974 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakad in CC.No.922/2003 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the second respondent, who prosecuted the revision petitioner before the trial court. In Crl.Appeal No.172/2006, the First Addl.Sessions Judge, Thrissur, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now this revision petition. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that he is not assailing the conviction, but the sentence is assailed. According to him, the revision petitioner is aged 29 years and a salesman with no substantive income and that the financial difficulties led him to face the prosecution. In the above circumstances, the Crl.R.P.No.3974 of 2009. -: 2 :- learned counsel sought for leniency in sentence. I find merit in the submission and that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.80,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the 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.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) with a default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-