IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 515 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.82/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE ST.320/2008 of SPECIAL, JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (MARAD CASES) KOZHIKODE) ................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.SHIJITH, S/O.BALAN, AGED 38 YEARS, "THEJUS", MOODADI NORTH P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE AND LEASING LTD, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT MANAPPURAM HOUSE, VALAPPAD P.O., TRICHUR, REP. BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER, K.RAJESH - 680 567. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.515 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 ORDER The challenge in this Crl.R.P is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner, who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted breathing time to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 13.11.2007 and that too for an amount of Rs.72,335/-. As per the findings of the courts below which approved by this Court, the said amount is due to the complainant and the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 4 years. Therefore, according to me, while granting some time to pay compensation amount, the compensation amount has to be enhanced slightly, so as to protect the interest of the complainant. Crl.R.P.No.515 of 2011 2 In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner but subject to enhancement of the compensation amount. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.94,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C within 3 months from today and in default he is directed to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 31.8.2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount as ordered by this Court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with any of the above condition, the trial court is free to take steps to execute the sentence and for realisation of compensation amount. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 31st August, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/