IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3678 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.450/2006 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.752/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HARIPAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- GANESH, AGED 59, S/O.KUZHANTHAVEL MANJOOR THEKKETHIL, MATHILBHAGOM MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. S.V.PRASAD AGED 47 S/O.SANKARA PILLAI, SRREVILASOM,KUTTAMPEROOR MURI MANNAR VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3678 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Haripad in C.C.No.752 of 2005 on his file for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay Rs.2,65,000/- as compensation to the first respondent who was the complainant before the trial court. In Criminal Appeal No.450 of 2006, the conviction was confirmed. The substantive sentence was reduced to simple imprisonment for one month. The amount of compensation was reduced to Rs.2,15,000/-. It is on taking into account that during the trial there was a proposal to settle the matter on payment of Rs.2,50,000/- within a time frame. But the revision petitioner could not pay the same within the time frame. However he paid Rs.35,000/-. Now this revision petition. 2. Today when the revision petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not assailing the conviction, but assailing the sentence. According to the learned counsel, the revision Crl.R.P.No.3678 of 2009 2 petitioner settled the matter and could not pay the amount in time because of the financial difficulties and hence he was constrained to face the prosecution and that he would pay the amount within a short period and in the circumstance, he is entitled to leniency in sentence. I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and that the revision petitioner is entitled to leniency in sentence. In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay Rs.2,15,000/- as compensation to the first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In default of payment of compensation, the revision petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for five months. The revision petitioner is granted six months time for payment of compensation. Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj