IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 398 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.451/2008 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.268/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR.GOPALAKRISHNAN ACHARI,SREELAKSHMI, IVARKALA PADINJATTAKARA,PUTHANAMBALAM PO. BY ADVS. SMT.D.MINI RAJAN, SRI.RAJ MOHAN R.PILLAI. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MR.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,X-MILITARY, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, IVARKALA PADINJATTAKARA, PUTHENAMBALAM PO,KANNATHOOR VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO 121 OF 2003 OF KOOTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION). R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 398 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') approached this Court by preferring the above revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence, imposed as per judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount fixed by the appellate court. In the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 11.9.2003 that too for an amount of Rs.75,000/-. The trial court though Crl.R.P.No.398 of 2011 :-2-: sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo six months simple imprisonment, the appellate court reduced the same to one day simple imprisonment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] wherein it was held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects, I am of the view that while granting some time to pay the compensation, the compensation amount can be enhanced slightly. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment as modified and fixed by the appellate court, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Crl.R.P.No.398 of 2011 :-3-: Cr.P.C. within three months from today and in default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 1st June,2011 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 1st June,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.398 of 2011 :-4-: As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that some breathing time may be granted to revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. The cheque in question is dated 2.4.2004 that too for an amount of Rs.43,000/-. The trial court though sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo six months simple imprisonment, the appellate court reduced the same to one day simple imprisonment. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and in the light of the decision reported ........., I am of the view that while granting some time, the compensation amount can be enhanced. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is Crl.R.P.No.398 of 2011 :-5-: disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment as modified and fixed by the appellate court, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of RS.60,500/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of the CrP.C. within three months from today and in default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to