Sony George vs Jacob Davis
2021 Latest Caselaw 12559 Ker

Crl.R.P.341/2021
                                           1


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
     WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1943
                         CRL.REV.PET NO. 341 OF 2021
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGEMENT IN CRA 210/2018 OF ADDITIONAL
        DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/1st ACCUSED:

              SONY GEORGE, AGED 50 YEARS
0




              S/O.GEORGE, MANAKKUNNEL KULASSERIL, MATHIRAPPILLY
              KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 666

              BY ADVS.
              E.C.POULOSE (P-288)-19314
              BOBBY RAPHEAL.C



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

              JACOB DAVIS, S/O.DEVASSY
0




              KOORAN HOUSE, MANJAPRA P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-
              683574

              STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031


OTHER PRESENT:

              PP MAYA M.N



THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    26.05.2021,       THE   COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.R.P.341/2021
                                    2




                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.1279 of 2007 of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor for offence

punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The

conviction and sentence was challenged by him in Crl.Appeal.No.210

of 2018. The appeal was allowed in part and the sentence was

modified to simple imprisonment for three months and to pay

compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant under section 357(3)

Cr.P.C. In default of payment of compensation, SI for one month was

also imposed. Aggrieved by the sentence and conviction, revision

petitioner has approached this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted

that, he has undergone the substantive sentence. Though there is

nothing on record to show that the petitioner has undergone the

substantive sentence, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that, he is accordingly not challenging the conviction. The only

grievance is that, due to financial difficulty the compensation could

not be given immediately. Learned counsel sought one months time

to pay the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/-. Crl.R.P.341/2021

3. Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of the

revision itself by giving one months time to the revision petitioner to

pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/-. All further proceedings for

recovery of the amount shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one

month from today. In the meanwhile, revision petitioner shall remit

the amount, failing which, appropriate legal proceedings can be

initiated against him after the expiry of one month from today.

Revision Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE Sbna/