IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3337 of 2010() ------------------------------ (CRA.400/2008 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ST.567/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KOLLAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- BHASI, S/O.VASUDEVAN, GIRIJA VILASOM, MAVILA, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. P.SURESH BABU, SURESH BHAVAN, JANANI NAGAR 79, KADAPPAKADA P.O.,KOLLAM, PIN 691 008. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 3337 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 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 compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered positively. But in the present case, it is pertinent to note that the cheque in question is dated 2.7.2003, that too for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. As per the findings of the courts below, which are upheld by this Court, the said amount is due to the Crl.R.PNO.3337 of 2011 :-2-: complainant for the last several years. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] has held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. It is also relevant to note that though the trial court has sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days, the appellate court has reduced the same to till the rising of the court. Now, the petitioner seeks three months time to compensate the complainant in spite of the fact that the petitioner has not paid any single pie though the cheque is dated 2.7.2003. In the light of the above facts and in view of the above decision, I am of the view that while granting three months time to the revision petitioner to pay the fine, the fine amount can be enhanced slightly, so as to save the interest of the complainant also. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner Crl.R.PNO.3337 of 2011 :-3-: 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 and while confirming the sentence to pay fine ordered by the appellate court, the fine amount fixed by the appellate court is modified as Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only) and the petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount within three months from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 23rd May,2011 to receive the modified sentence ordered by the appellate court and to deposit the above enhanced fine amount. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court on the above date to receive the modified sentence fixed by the appellate court and to deposit the fine amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and to Crl.R.PNO.3337 of 2011 :-4-: realise the fine. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.62,500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and an amount of Rs.2,500/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 23rd May,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/