IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3763 of 2010() -------------------------------------------- CRA.708/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC III ), PALAKKAD ST.233/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,OTTAPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- LINGAN MUTHALI, S/O.MANIKKAN MUTHALI, 72 YEARS, MUTHALIYAR THERUVIL, KANIYAMPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJAN, S/O.THAMBI, KOZHINGHIPARAMBIL, KANNIYAMPURAM AMSOM & DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 104. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. 3763 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. O R D E R Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 233 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -II, Ottappalam. He was prosecuted by the first respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate found the revision petitioner guilty. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000- as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Crl. Appeal 708 of 2009, the Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad, while confirming the conviction, set aside the substantive sentence and the revision petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,10,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. The fine amount, on realisation, was ordered to be paid to the first respondent herein as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified CRL.R.P. 3763/2010 2 in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Today, when the revision petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a substantive portion of the compensation amount was already paid and the revision petitioner is only seeking time for depositing the balance. The submission is recorded and the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six month's time to deposit the fine. If any amount was paid by the revision petitioner to the first respondent directly, that shall be given credit to. P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-