IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 942 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRA.10/2003 of ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (ADHOC) FAST TRACK- II, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.334/2000 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONERS/ ADDDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANNAMMA MATHEW, MEMANA VEEDU, VETTIPURAM MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. ROYAL MATHEW, RESIDING AT DO..DO... 3. NOBLE MATHEW, RESIDING AT. DO..DO.. 4. NIZZI MATHEW, RESIDING AT DO...DO... BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.R.VINOD RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED & STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. A.SUBRAHAMANIA PILLAI, PULIMMOOTTIL STORES, POLICE STATION ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.942 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 6.01.2010 ORDER The complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated as C.C.No.334 of 2000 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta involving a cheque for Rs.1 lakh challenges the sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track -II, Pathanamthitta in Crl.Appeal No.10 of 2003 confirming the sentence of fine of Rs.50,000/- imposed by the trial court. According to the revision petitioner, the courts below ought to have directed the fine amount to be paid as compensation to the revision petitioner. 2. I am not inclined to accede to the above submission, because admittedly the revision petitioner did not challenge the sentence imposed by the trial court. It is not disputed that he was heard by the lower appellate court in Crl. R.P. No. 942 of 2008 2 the appeal filed by the accused against the conviction and sentence. He could have preferred a revision before the Sessions Court against the sentence passed by the trial court. Having not done so, he cannot now challenge the sentence passed by the lower appellate court. As the revision petitioner failed to assail the sentence passed by the trial court, he is precluded from challenging the sentence passed by the lower Appellate Court. This revision is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj