IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 970 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.61/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.226/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: ----------------------------- SINDHU, W/O.RAVIKUMAR,VELIYIL VEEDU EASWARY NIVAS, PATHIRAPPALLY PO, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. RAJESH M, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR THOPPIL VEEDU, AVALOOKKUNNU PO, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR FOR R1 SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 970 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 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 her 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 fine amount. I find no reason to reject the above request. It is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 14.2.2008. 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. 3. Having regard to the facts and legal position, I am of the view that while granting some time to the revision petitioner Crl.R.PNO.970 of 2011 :-2-: to pay the fine, the fine 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 and fine ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court, the fine amount is enhanced and accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,65,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only) in the trial court within three months from today, in default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs,2,62,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of Rs.3000/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 7th July, 2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to deposit the above enhanced fine amount on the date of appearance. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the Crl.R.PNO.970 of 2011 :-3-: trial court on the above date, 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 7th July, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-