IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 958 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRL.A NO.74/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA S.T. NO.96/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HARIPAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAJAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, KATTUPARAMBIL VEEDU, VETTUVENI, HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.RAMAKRISHNAN, CHOORALACKAL VEEDU, PILAPPUZHA MURI, HARIPAD. 690 514. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: krj V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.958 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 ORDER The accused in a prosecution for the offence Under Section 138 of the NI Act is the revision petitioner. The challenge is against her conviction and sentence for the said offence. 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 sufficient 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 08.03.2007 and that too for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. No amount is seen paid even though the appellate court has granted two months time. It is also relevant to note that even the trial court avoiding substantial sentence, imposed only a sentence of Crl.R.P.No.958 of 2011 2 fine and the amount was fixed as equivalent to the cheque amount. Therefore, while granting time to pay the fine amount, according to me, the fine amount has to be enhanced considering the fact the cheque in question dated 8.3.2007. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act as recorded by the courts below. While confirming the sentence of fine imposed by the trial court as well as the appellate court, the fine amount is enhanced and accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposits a fine of Rs.1,80,000/- in the trial court within 3 months from today and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Thus, the revision petitioner shall deposit the fine amount in the trial court on or before 23.09.2011. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with the above direction, the trial court is free to take steps to execute the sentence and for realisation of fine amount. On realisation Crl.R.P.No.958 of 2011 3 of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. The execution of coercive steps, if any pending, against the revision petitioner, shall be deferred till 23rd September, 2011. The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/