IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3417 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.868/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-III), THALASSERY CC.157/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- T.KUNHIMOIDEEN, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, THIRUDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.VENGALLOOR, VIA.P.B.ANGADI, TIRUR-2, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. A.M.C.MAMMU, S/O.ABDULLA, ZEENATH MANZIL, J.T.ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK SRI.C.KHALID FOR R2 SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER FOR R2 SRI.T.P.SAJID FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3417 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thalassery, for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. He was ordered to pay Rs.70,000/- to the second respondent as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Criminal Appeal No.868 of 2003, the conviction was confirmed. The sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for six months with an order to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation to the second respondent. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence, this revision petition was filed. 3. The second respondent took notice and entered appearance. 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 coolie and he is in his sixties and that he Crl.R.P.No.3417 of 2009 2 had already deposited the compensation amount before the trial court and in that circumstances, he is entitled to a little leniency in sentence. 4. Having heard either side, I find that the submissions made by the learned counsel deserves merit and that a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.70,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, this 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.70,000/-. In default of payment of fine the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Fine, on realisation shall be paid to the 2nd respondent as compensation. In the event the revision petitioner had deposited any amount before the trial court, the second respondent is at liberty to apply for release of the amount. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj