IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 466 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CRA.65/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA ST.190/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- S.RAJAN, S/O.SUBRAMANIYAN, PROPRIETOR, SANTHOSH BAKERY, CHAINA MUKKU, KONNI P.O., NOW RESIDING AT CHEENIKALAYIL, MANGARAM, KONNI. BY ADVS. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAMUEL PHILIPOSE, S/O.EASO PHILIPOSE, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, POOVANPARA, KONNI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.K.MOHANAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. R.P. No.466 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of February, 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 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that, one month’s time can be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the Crl. R.P. No.466/2011 2 compensation amount. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner as recorded by the court below. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment as modified and fixed by the appellate court, the direction to pay the compensation, the compensation amount and the default sentence are also confirmed. But 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 from the part of the revision petitioner in paying the compensation amount within one month’s time from today. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 14.03.2011, to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the trial court and to pay the compensation amount. It is made clear that the revision petitioner is Crl. R.P. No.466/2011 3 free to pay the compensation amount either directly to the complainant or by remitting the same in the trial court which ever subject to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court and paying the compensation amount as directed above, 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. The coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 14.03.2011. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (V.K.MOHANAN), Judge ss/. //True Copy// P.A to Judge