IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 149 of 2002() ----------------------------- CRA.607/2001 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.94/1999 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED. -------------------------------------------------- P.K.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. KURUPPAN, PATHAPPILLY HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, MALAYATTOOR, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.MATHAI SRI.V.J.JOHN RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS & COMPLAINANT & STATE. ------------------------------------------------- 1. ANNIE MATHEW, W/O. AUGUSTINE MATHEW, SANJO VILLA, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-35. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH ARAYAKUNNEL FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. VENUGOPAL M.R. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.R.P. 149 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. O R D E R The revision petitioner was found guilty by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (E.O), Ernakulam, in C.C.94 of 1999 for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 4,15,000/- out of which Rs. 4,10,000/- was ordered to be paid to the first respondent – the defacto complainant as compensation. In Crl.A.607/2001, the IInd additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, while confirming the conviction, reduced the substantive sentence to simple imprisonment for six months. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 2. Today, when the revision petition came up for hearing, Advocate Sri. C.I.Abraham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner, submitted that the revision petitioner is not assailing the conviction and that the sentence alone is assailed. The submission is recorded. According to the learned counsel, the liability arose out of a CRL.R.P. 149/2002 2 business transaction and the failure in business and consequent financial problems led the revision petitioner to face the prosecution. With these pleadings, he sought for leniency in sentence. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I find that in the circumstances stated earlier, the revision petitioner is entitled to leniency in sentence and that a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court with a fine of Rs. 4,20,000/- (Four lakhs and twenty thousand only) would meet the ends of justice. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of . While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 4,20,000/- (Four lakhs and twenty thousand only). In default of payment of the fine, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine amount, if collected, the amount ordered to be paid by the courts below to the first respondent as compensation shall be paid to the first respondent. If there is already any remittance, that shall be given credit to. The revision petitioner is granted three months time to remit the fine amount. P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) KNC/- CRL.R.P. 149/2002 3 P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.R.P. 149 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED: 18TH AUGUST, 2011. O R D E R