IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 144 of 2011() ------------------------------------------ CRA.NO.45/2009 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM C.C.1068/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- D.MOHANAN PILLAI, MAHESH BUILDING, CHITTAKKATTU THEKKETHIL, SOUTH MYNAGAPPALLY, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 519. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.MOHANAN PILLAI, CHAKKITTAKULATHINMEL VEEDU, SOUTH MYNAGAPPALLY, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 519. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 011. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V.K.MOHANAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. R.P. No.144 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17 th day of January, 2011. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for the offence under section138 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. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents. 3. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can be Crl. R.P. No.144/2011 2 granted some time to pay the compensation amount. The Hon'ble 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. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction and sentence as imposed by the appellate court and the revision petitioner is granted one month's time to pay the compensation amount. It is made clear that the default sentence fixed by the appellate court will attract only in case of default on the part of the revision petitioner in paying the amount within the above period. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 18.02.2011 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. If there is any default in appearing before the court below and paying the Crl. R.P. No.144/2011 3 compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the compensation amount. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (V.K.MOHANAN), Judge. ss/. //True Copy// P.A to Judge