IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2011 / 10TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1674 of 2011 ------------------------------------- (CRA.366/2008 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA CC.635/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, CHENGANNUR) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- RAJAMMA, W/O.KUNJU PILLAI, ASWATHI BHAVAN, THITTAMEL MURI, PADAYAN PARA, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. PRASANNA KUMARIAMMA, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, PULIMOOTIL PUTHENVEEDU, THITTAMAL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. 2. GOPALA PILLAI, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, PULIMOOTIL PUTHENVEEDU, THITTAMAL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. 3. MANIKUTTAN PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, PULIMOOTIL PUTHENVEEDU, THITTAMAL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. 4. BRAMMADEVAN PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, PULIMOOTIL PUTHENVEEDU, THITTAMAL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE. (RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 HAVE BEEN IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.5903 OF 2011 DTD.1.7.2011) 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1674 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2011 O R D E R The challenge in this Crl.R.P. is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act'). 2. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no contention on merit, but she requires some time to pay the compensation amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered positively. 3. But, it is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 6.4.2006, that too for an amount of `.60,000/- . As per the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court, the amount covered by the cheque is due to the complainant, but the same is Crl.R.P.No.1674 of 2011 :-2-: with the revision petitioner for the last five years. It is also a fact that at the time of pronouncement of the appellate court judgment, the complainant was no more which insisted the revision petitioner herein to implead his legal heirs with the leave of this Court. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to compensate the legal heirs of the complainant and to pay an amount, that may be fixed by this Court, within one month from today. In the light of the above submission and considering the facts, which are already mentioned above, I am of the view that while granting one month time to the petitioner, to deposit the compensation, the 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 fixed by the appellate court, the compensation amount is enhanced and accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Crl.R.P.No.1674 of 2011 :-3-: `.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) to respondents 1 to 4, the legal heirs of the original complainant, or to deposit the amount in the trial court within one month from today, and in default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 01.08.2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the appellate court and to pay the compensation amount as modified by this Court. 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 01.08.2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. The figure and words “`.75,000/-” (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only)” occurring in line 1 of page 3 of the final order Crl.R.P.No.1674 of 2011 :-4-: dated 01/07/2011 in Crl.R.P.1674/2011 are substituted with the figure and words “`.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only)” as per order dated 12/08/2011 in Crl.M.A.7039/2011. sd/- Registrar (Judicial) Crl.R.P.No.1674 of 2011 :-5-: es 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.