IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH, 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 900 of 2011 ---------------------------------- (CRA.159/2008 of III ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.23/2007 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, PUNALUR) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------- MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, MURALEE MANIDRAM, YEROOR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------- 1. SURENDRAN, S.S.NIVAS, BHARATHEEPURAM P.O., THINKALKARIKKOM VILLAGE, KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 900 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 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. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the fine amount. I find no reason to reject the above request. 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 fine and the fine amount ordered by the appellate court, the revision petitioner is granted one month's time to Crl.R.PNO.900 of 2011 :-2-: pay the fine amount as ordered by the appellate court. It is made clear that the default sentence fixed by the appellate court will be attracted only if there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner to deposit the fine amount within the above extended time. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount fixed by the appellate court on or before 29th April, 2011. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in making the deposit of fine amount on or before the above date, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. On realisation of the fine amount, the entire amount shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 29th April,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.PNO.900 of 2011 :-3-: