IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3026 of 2005(C) -------------------------------------- CRA.500/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD. C.C.72/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PALAKKAD. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED. ---------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAN, S/O.CHERUKUTTY, CHERUKUTTY NIVAS, CHORAKKODE, PERUVEMBA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT. ------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.SUDHA SUNDAR, D/O.SUNDARAN NAIR, ASWATHI, MANTHAKKAD, MALAPPUZHA, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRIMINAL.R.P. NO. 3026 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl.A.500/03. That appeal was preferred against the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.72/02 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad. The trial court convicted the accused u/s 138 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till the raising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. This was confirmed by the appellate court in appeal. It is against that decision the present revision is preferred. 2. When the revision petition came up for consideration the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits before me that leniency may be shown so far as the sentence is concerned and the sentence of imprisonment may be modified and some time may be given to pay the amount. The counsel for the other side was also heard on Cr.R.P. OF 2007 -:2:- that point. I feel leniency can be shown by altering the sentence of imprisonment into that of fine. Therefore the Criminal Revision is disposed of as follows: (1) The conviction u/s 138 of the N.I. Act is sustained. (2) The sentence passed by the Courts below are modified and the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- which on realisation be paid to the complainant in the case and in case of default of payment of fine the revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment for a period of three weeks. (3) The revision petitioner shall pay the fine on or before 15.1.2009 failing which the trial court shall execute the sentence. (4 ) If any amount is deposited as compensation it shall be treated as part of fine and the balance need be deposited and the amounts so deposited shall be disbursed to the complainant on proper application. The Criminal Revision is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-