IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3849 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.464/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) III, PALAKKAD ST.4196/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REV. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ KUPPUSWAMY, S/O.KAMALAKSHI, ATHIKKUZHI, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/NON-PARTY ------------------------------------ 1. SREEDHARAN, S/O.DORAISWAMY, DEVANKAPURAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3849 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009 ORDER The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittur in S.T.No.4196 of 2006 (L.P.No.72 of 1999) convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs.32,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Criminal Appeal No.464 of 2007, the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), Palakkad while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs.50,000/-. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as reduced in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not assailing the conviction, but the sentence is assailed. It is submitted that the appellate court without any justification imposed a sentence of fine of Rs.50,000/- as against the compensation of Rs.32,000/- awarded by the trial court. It is pertinent to note that the fine was Crl.R.P.No.3849 of 2009 2 imposed is in suppression of the substantive sentence. Though the revision petitioner had to pay a higher amount as fine than the compensation, the sentence is very lenient. Taking into account that the matter is more than a decade old, enhanced fine and compensation thereon are quite appropriate. The first respondent is getting justice highly delayed. He is to be duly compensated. It is pertinent to note that revision petitioner was absconding and thus the delay occurred. I find no error, impropriety or illegality in the sentence of fine, which is within the penal provision. Revision petition is devoid of merits. It is dismissed. However, the revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj