Crl.Rev.Pet/3083/2011 of MUHAMMAD ASLAM Vs V.MANOJKUMAR on 30 December 2011

O R D E R

~~~~~~~

Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.181/2009 on the file ofthe Judicial Magistrate of the 1[st] Class-II, Hosdurg. He wasprosecuted by the 1[st] respondent alleging offence under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After trial he was foundguilty, convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for onemonth with direction to pay rupees three lakhs as compensationunder Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Though he preferred a Criminal Appeal 80/2010 before theSessions Judge, Kasaragod he was not successful. Nowassailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the aboveconviction and sentence, this Revision Petition is preferred.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitionersubmitted that the revision petitioner is not assailing theconviction and the revision is confined to the sentence alone.According to the learned counsel, the liability arose out of abusiness transaction and that the petitioner is aged 55 yearsand that the financial difficulties led him to face the Crl.R.P.No.3083/2011

prosecution. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, thepetitioner is entitled to leniency in sentence.

3. Having gone through the judgments impugned, I findmerit in the submission and that a sentence of imprisonment tillthe rising of the court with direction to pay the compensationwould meet the ends of justice.

4. In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed in part.While confirming the conviction, the substantive sentence isreduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The order topay compensation with default sentence is sustained. Therevision petitioner is granted six months time to remit thecompensation.

ps/30/12

(P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)