IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1803 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 27.6.2007 IN CC.314/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------- SUDHEER.E.B., S/O.BALAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.AYYAPPA TRAVELS, IRINJALAKUDA (EZHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADAVARAMBA P.O., THRISSUR DIST.) BY ADV. MR.N.KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- 1. JOY ANTONY, S/O.ANTONY, ST.ANTONY'S TRAVELS, MODEL SCHOOL JUNCTION, MANORAMA ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE GOVT. PLEADER, A.G'S OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 1803 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make in this revision which is not prejudicial to him. Complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, “the Act”) has come up in revision challenging the extent of sentence. Learned magistrate found respondent No.1 guilty under Section 138 of the Act and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment till rising of the court. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner under Section 357 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in default of payment, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Complaint of the petitioner is that sentence awarded is not proper. Cheque was for a sum of Rs.10,000/- drawn on 10.11.2003 and till now, respondent No.1 has not paid the amount. Petitioner therefore requests this court to exercise its revisional power and award Crl.R.P.1803/2009 2 enhanced sentence and compensation. 3. Sentence is largely a matter within the discretionary power of the trial court. Revisional court need interfere with the sentence awarded by the trial court and enhance the sentence or the amount of compensation awarded only if the sentence/compensation awarded is manifestly inadequate. I am not pursuaded to think that the sentence/compensation awarded in this case comes within the category so as to to call for interference. While directing payment of compensation the court has also to consider the means of the person made liable to pay compensation. Compensation awarded in this case is not inadequate. Hence no interference is called for. Revision Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.1803/2009 3