Lingan Muthali vs Rajan on 14 December, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3763 of 2010()


1. LINGAN MUTHALI, S/O.MANIKKAN MUTHALI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. RAJAN, S/O.THAMBI,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED

                For Petitioner  :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :14/12/2010

 O R D E R
                           P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.
                          = = = = = = = = = = =
                          CRL. R.P. 3763 OF 2010
                         = = = = = = = = = = = = =

        DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010.

                                  O R D E R

Revision petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 233 of 2008 on the file

of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -II, Ottappalam. He was

prosecuted by the first respondent for offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate found the revision

petitioner guilty. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced to simple

imprisonment for three months under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000- as compensation to the

first respondent under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In Crl. Appeal 708 of 2009, the Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad, while

confirming the conviction, set aside the substantive sentence and the

revision petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,10,000/- with a

default sentence of simple imprisonment for two months. The fine amount,

on realisation, was ordered to be paid to the first respondent herein as

compensation under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. Assailing the legality,

correctness and propriety of the above conviction and sentence as modified

CRL.R.P. 3763/2010 2

in appeal, this revision petition was filed.

2. Today, when the revision petition came up for hearing, learned

counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that a substantive portion of the

compensation amount was already paid and the revision petitioner is only

seeking time for depositing the balance. The submission is recorded and

the revision petition is dismissed. The revision petitioner is granted six

month’s time to deposit the fine. If any amount was paid by the revision

petitioner to the first respondent directly, that shall be given credit to.

P.S. GOPINATHAN,
(JUDGE)

knc/-