IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3703 of 2008()
1. REFEEQUE.P.P, S/O.PAREED, PUTHUKADAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SMT.LATHA.K.S, PROPRIETOR OF
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.AYPE JOSEPH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :25/03/2010
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No.3703 of 2008.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010.
O R D E R
The revision petitioner was found guilty for offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months with
direction to pay Rs.59,850/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/-
as costs to the first respondent, who prosecuted the revision
petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-
II, Aluva, in CC.No.172/2004. Feeling aggrieved, the
revision petitioner took up the matter in Crl.Appeal
No.60/2007 before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. The
IIIrd Addl.Sessions Judge to whom the appeal was made
over concurred with the lower court in finding the revision
petitioner guilty. However, the substantial sentence was
reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a
fine of Rs.one lakh, out of which Rs.98,000/- was ordered to
be paid to the first respondent as compensation under
Crl.R.P.No.3703 of 2008.
-: 2 :-
Sec.357(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Assailing the
legality, correctness and propriety of the above conviction
and sentence as modified in appeal, this revision petition
was filed.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that he is not assailing the conviction as well as
the substantial sentence but, he is assailing only the fine
imposed. According to the learned counsel, the fine
imposed is too high and that the appellate court fixed the
fine amount on calculating interest. Appeal against
conviction is not an execution proceedings of a civil court
decree to calculate interest precisely and to determine the
fine amount. In a criminal case, what is appropriate is to
give a reasonable compensation and nothing more. Though
the fine imposed is within the statutory limit, taking into
account that the cheque amount was only for Rs.59,850/-, I
find that there is a little merit in the submission and that a
fine of Rs.75,000/- and paying that much amount as
Crl.R.P.No.3703 of 2008.
-: 3 :-
compensation would meet the ends of justice. In the event
the first respondent has more claim including interest, she
would be at liberty to approach the civil court.
3. In the result, while confirming the conviction and
the substantial sentence, the fine is reduced to Rs.75,000/-
(Rupees seventy-five thousand only) with a default sentence
of simple imprisonment for two months. The revision
petitioner is granted two months time to remit the fine
which on realisation shall be paid to the first respondent as
compensation under Sec.357(1) of the Crl.P.C. Till the
expiry of time to remit the fine, the bail bond executed by
the revision petitioner shall remain in force. The amount, if
any, deposited shall be given credit to.
The revision petition is disposed of as above.
P.S.GOPINATHAN
(Judge)
Kvs/-