IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3628 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.573/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOTTAYAM ST.1918/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SRI. GANGA AGRI CLINIC, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, D. SASIKUMAR, OPPOSITE SANKAR SAWMILL, K.M. ROAD, JYOTHINAGAR, CHICKAMANGALOOR, KARNATAKA STATE 2. D. SASIKUMAR, S/O. LATE DASARADHA GOWDA, RESIDING AT MIG 1/15, II PHASE, HUDCO, K.M. ROAD, JYOTHINAGAR, CHICKAMANGALOOR, KARNATAKA. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SAMSON CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER TIJO J. KODODDY KONDODICKAL HOUSE, ERAVUCHIRA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3628 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioners were convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II (Mobile Court), Kottayam in S.T.No.1918 of 2007 on his file for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the first revision petitioner was sentenced to a fine of Rs.74,000/-. The second revision petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment for five months and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In Criminal Appeal No.573 of 2008 the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kottayam by judgment dated 6/8/2009 confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now this revision petition. 2. Today when the revision petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that he is not assailing the conviction, but the sentence is assailed. According to him, the transaction leading to the issuance of cheque occurred out of the business transaction and that the revision petitioners failed in their business and in the peculiar circumstance, in awarding sentence Crl.R.P.No.3628 of 2009 2 leniency may be shown to the revision petitioners. I find some merit in the submission. 3. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence awarded against the first revision petitioner is reduced to a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The substantive sentence imposed against the second revision petitioner is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs.74,000/- (Rupees Seventy- four thousand only) with a default sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The revision petitioners are granted six months time to pay the fine. Till then, the bail bond executed by them shall remain in force. In the event of realization of the fine, Rs.74,000/- (Rupees seventy four thousand only) shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.