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. 3511 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.203/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C.No.617/2003 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: APPELLANT-ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- S.K.THANKARAJ, PROPRIETOR, ASWATHY CONSTRUCTIONS, VAZHUTHAKAD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.A.N.KUTTAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS-COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SAROJINI, D/O.NARAYANAN, V.S.HOUSE, SARKARA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZH. 2. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK ADV. SRI.M.AJAY FOR R1 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.3511 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 ORDER The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Attingal in C.C.No.617 of 2003 found the revision petitioner guilty for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and was ordered to pay Rs.1,05,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Criminal Appeal No.203 of 2006, the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram confirmed the conviction and sentence. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. The first respondent took notice. Both sides were heard. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner was a building contractor and his business collapsed and that is how he was put into trouble. In the above circumstance, he requested for leniency as regards the sentence Crl.R.P.No.3511 of 2009 2 and submitted that the conviction is not assailed. The submission merits consideration. In the peculiar circumstance of the case, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to a little leniency in sentence and a sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court with order to pay compensation to the first respondent would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the substantive sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court. The order to pay compensation is sustained with default sentence of simple imprisonment for five months. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the compensation. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj