IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 901 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.670/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.88/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,OTTAPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.K.SELVARAJ, S/O.LATE KITTA, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, MUNDAYA, SHORANUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. R.SENTHIL KUMAR, S/O.RAJAMANIKKAM, SHAKTHI NIVAS, NEAR SIVA TEMPLE, SABAMADAM ROAD, SHORANUR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 901 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th 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. 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 25.8.2004 that too for an amount of Rs.75,000/-. The trial court though sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo three 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] Crl.R.PNO.901of 2011 :-2-: 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. 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 direction to pay compensation is set aside and the revision petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.97,500/- (Rupees Ninety seven thousand and Five Hundred only) within two 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 30th May, 2011 to receive the sentence and to pay the fine amount. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner to receive the sentence and to pay 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. On realisation of the fine amount a sum of Rs.95,000/- shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Crl.R.PNO.901of 2011 :-3-: section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The remaining amount of Rs.2500/- shall be deposited in the State Ex chequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 30th May, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-