IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 33 of 2009()
1. P.G.VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE VARGHESE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.C.ABRAHAM, S/O.VARGHESE, 63 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. THOMAS, S/O.VARGHESE VARGHESE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
For Respondent :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON
Dated :04/12/2009
O R D E R
SRI.T.K. CHANDRASEKHARA DAS
(RETIRED JUDGE)
&
SRI. K.J. THOMAS STANLEY
(RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE)
================================
F.A.O. NO.33 OF 2009
==================
Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009
AWARD
The counsel appearing both sides have reported that matter
settled and the terms of settlements has been incorporated in a
joint petition signed by the parties and the counsels, along with a
plan prepared by the District Head Surveyor, Pathanamthitta,
Mr.N. Basheer Khan. The joint petition and plan form part of the
award.
Accordingly the award is passed in terms contained in the
joint petition.
T.K. CHANDRASEKHARA DAS
(RETIRED JUDGE)
K.J. THOMAS STANLEY
(RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE)
sou.
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3622 of 2009()
#1. NIKHIL
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. MOHAN M.G.
... Respondent
! For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.SUNIL
^ For Respondent :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
% Dated :25/11/2009
: O R D E R
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.