IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1512 of 2001 -------------------------------------- CRA.141/1998 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA ST.1217/1994 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED DR. JAYACHANDRAN .K. NAIR, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KULANADA, KOZHENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. S.SHEELAMANI, THOPPILA VEEDU, MUTTOM P.O., CHEPPAD VILLAGE KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER IS ABSENT. COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS PRESENT. REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. 09.11.2009 SD/- P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. / TRUE COPY / P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.1512 of 2001. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kayamkulam in ST.No.1217/1994 found the revision petitioner guilty for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months. The first respondent herein prosecuted the revision petitioner alleging the above said offence with a plea that the revision petitioner borrowed Rs.75,000/- and in discharge of the same Ext.P1 cheque was issued and that when it was presented for collection it was bounced for insufficient funds and despite the notice demanding discharge, the liability was not discharged. 2. The revision petitioner entered appearance in response to the process and he pleaded not guilty when particulars of the offence were read over and explained. After due trial, the learned Magistrate arrived a conclusion Crl.R.P.No.1512 of 2001. -: 2 :- of guilty. Though the revision petitioner preferred Crl.Appeal No.141/1998 before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara, he was not successful. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the conviction and sentence as confirmed in appeal, this revision petitioner was filed. 3. The 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 now aged 63 years, is a medical practitioner and that the sentence awarded is so harsh. Having heard either side, I find some merit in the submission and that a sentence of fine of Rs.75,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. While confirming the conviction, the sentence is reduced to a fine of Rs.75,000/- with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for three months. The revision petitioner is granted two months time to remit the fine, which on Crl.R.P.No.1512 of 2001. -: 3 :- realisation shall be paid to the first respondent as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Crl.P.C. Till the fine is remitted, the bail bond executed by him shall remain in force. P.S.GOPINATHAN (Judge) Kvs/-