IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2010 / 5TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2574 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.446/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, PALA ST.491/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -II, PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): / APPELLANT / ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, HOUSE NO.IV,149,NAVAKKADU, KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT(S): / RESPONDENT / STATE AND COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 2. SAJI BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, ARACKAL HOUSE, PIZHAKU P.O.,MANATHUR, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.BENNY VARGHESE THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No. 2574 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2010 ORDER The Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Pala, in S.T.No.491/2007, on his file convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.40,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for another 15 days. Though Criminal Appeal No.446/2009 was filed before the Sessions Judge, Kottayam, the Revision Petitioner was not successful. Now, this Revision Petition. 2. Today, when the Revision Petition came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that he is not assailing the conviction but sentence is assailed. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner is now aged 60 years and without any avocation and in the above circumstance, he is entitled to a little leniency in sentence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submission made by the learned Counsel, I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to leniency and that a sentence Crl.R.P. No. 2574 OF 2010 : 2 : of imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs.41,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of court and fine of Rs.41,000/- (Rupees Forty One Thousand only). In default of payment of fine, revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days. The revision petitioner is granted 4 months time to remit the fine. Fine if realised, Rs.40,000/- shall be paid to the 2nd respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the event there is any direct payment not exceeding Rs.40,000/-, that shall be given credit to. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dmb