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. 3622 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRA.417/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM ST.1368/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM ................................... PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- NIKHIL, S/O. PEETHAMBARAN, MAMBALATHARA, CHENGALAM SOUTH P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL SMT.NIMA JACOB RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHAN M.G., ANAPURATHU, VLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP R1 BY MR.S.MANU PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. P.S.Gopinathan, J. ========================================== Crl.R.P.3622 of 2009 ========================================== Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009. ORDER 1.The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II (Mobile), Kottayam in S.T.No.1368 of 2007 on his file convicted the revision petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In Crl.A.417 of 2008, the above conviction and sentence was confirmed. Now this revision petition. 2.Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he is not assailing the conviction. But the sentence is assailed. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner is a man without any avocation. In that circumstance, he is entitled to little leniency in sentence and that he is prepared to pay the cheque amount. I find merit in the CRRP3622/2009 -:2:- submission made by the learned counsel. I find that the revision petitioner is entitled to a little leniency in sentence. Even otherwise, a modification of the sentence is absolutely warranted, because there is no provision in the impugned judgment to pay compensation to the first respondent. I find that sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court with direction to pay Rs.40,000/- to the first respondent as compensation would meet the ends of justice. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is modified to one of imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay Rs.40,000/-, the cheque amount 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 CRRP3622/2009 -:3:- undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Revision petitioner is granted six months time to pay compensation Till then, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. sl. P.S.Gopinathan, Judge.