IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3790 of 2010() ------------------------------ (CRL. APPEAL NO. .78/2010 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I) MANJERI). (ST NO.575/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,PERINTALMANNA). .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O.POOTHANI, KUNJI MOHAMMED, KIZHAKKUMPADAM, MELATUR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUM MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. U. BALACHANDRAN, S/O. ULLATTIL AYYAPPAN, EPPIKKAD, EDAPPATTA AMSOM, DESOM, PERINTALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST-679326. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ----------------------------------- CR.R.P.NO.3790 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.575 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Perintalmanna. The revision petitioner was found guilty for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the first respondent who prosecuted the revision petitioner before the trial court. In Criminal Appeal No.78/2010, the Addl. Sessions Judge (Ad-Hoc-I) Manjeri, while confirming the conviction, reduced the substantive sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The fine and order to pay the compensation out of the fine amount were sustained. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision was preferred. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, submitted that the revision petitioner is seeking only time for paying the compensation. The submission is recorded. The revision petition is CR.R.P.NO.3790 OF 2010 2 dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six months time to remit the compensation. Till then, the bail bond executed by the revision petitioner shall remain in force. In the event the revision petitioner had made any direct payment to the first respondent with proper acknowledgment that shall be given credit to. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE pm