IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1487 of 2010() ------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRRP.2909/2009 Dated 17/09/2009 CC.426/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER:- ------------------ TOMY VARGHESE, S/O.ABRAHAM VARGHESE, ILANJIKKAL HOUSE, YMCA JN., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S):- ------------------------ 1. K.M.JAYARAJ, S/O.KANNU PILLAI, J.P.NIVAS, PARK JUNCTION, PATHIRAPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.BIJU KURIAKOSE FOR R1. GOVT.PLEADER SHRI.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.1487 of 2010. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010. O R D E R The petitioner was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha in CC.No.426/2006 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1,50,000/-. In appeal, the conviction and sentence were confirmed. In Crl.R.P.No.2909/2009 before this Court, the substantive sentence was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and the fine imposed was sustained. 2. Now, the petitioner would allege that the trial court had ordered to pay the fine amount as compensation to the defacto complainant and the petitioner had directly paid the fine amount to the defacto complainant towards compensation. The trial court was not prepared to accept the above submission. In the above circumstance, this petition is filed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Crl.M.C.No.1487/2010. -: 2 :- Procedure seeking a direction to the trial court to record that the petitioner had complied with the direction for payment of fine. I find no merit in this petition and is only to be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that in another case, a learned Judge of this Court had granted an identical relief as now sought. In the event there is such a precedent, it is for the petitioner to approach the trial court and seek appropriate relief. Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. P.S.GOPINATHAN (Judge) kvs/-