IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3646 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.50/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD STC.3668/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- R.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.RAMAN THEKKEKKATTIL, CHANDRANAGAR, ALAMPALLAM,PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.VASU THATTINKAL HOUSE, VAKKINICHALLA KUTTIPALLAM, THEKKE DESOM, CHITTUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROCECUTOR SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jma P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3646 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009 ORDER The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chittur in S.T.No.3668 of 2006 on his file 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.65,000/-as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the first respondent who was the complainant. In Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2008 the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Palakkad confirmed the conviction. But the sentence was modified to a fine of Rs.70,000/-. Fine, on realization was ordered to be paid to the first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition was filed. 3. Today when the revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the conviction is not assailed. But the sentence is assailed. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the Crl.R.P.No.3646 of 2009 2 cheque amount was only Rs.60,000/-. The trial court ordered to pay compensation Rs.65,000/-. But in appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge enhanced the same as a fine of Rs.70,000/- and to pay such amount as compensation. It is not at all justified. The submission merits consideration. I find that there is no justification in imposing a fine in appeal more than the compensation awarded by the trial court and ordering that much amount as compensation. I find that the fine of Rs.65,000/- would be appropriate. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction under challenge, the sentence of fine is reduced to Rs.65,000/- with default clause as ordered by the appellate court and to pay that amount as compensation. 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.