IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2383 of 2004() ------------------------------ CRA.204/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR CC.423/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VADAKKANCHERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT/ACCUSED. --------------------------- K.V.GOPINATHAN, S/O.VASU, KOTTOLE VEEDU, PUDURUTHURUTHY, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL XAVIER SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR SRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT. --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALAM. 2. OUSEPH, S/O.INASU, ARAKKEL HOUSE, VENGALASSERY DESOM, VELOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 2383 OF 2004 --------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2011 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class, Vadakkanchery for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'NI Act') and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months with direction to pay Rs.21,000/- as compensation to the 2nd respondent, the defacto complainant. In Crl.A.No.204/2003, the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc)-I Thrissur while confirming the conviction reduced the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The compensation was enhanced to Rs.23,000/-. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this Revision Petition was preferred. 2. Today, when the Revision Petition came up for hearing, Sri.M.Rishikesh Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, submitted that he is not assailing the conviction and that the sentence alone is assailed. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner is a coolie in his Crl.R.P.No.2383/2004 2 fifties and that due to the financial difficulties the revision petitioner was constrained to face the prosecution. On this ground, the learned counsel sought for leniency in sentence. Having heard, I find merit in the submission and that sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of Rs.25,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 3. In the result the Revision Petition is disposed of as follows: The conviction under challenge is confirmed. The sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of court and a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only). In default of payment of fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine amount, if collected, Rs.23,000/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand only) shall be paid to the 2nd respondent as compensation. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. The amount, if any, paid shall be given credit to. (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) ps/11/7