IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1557 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.610/2007 OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, IRINJALAKUDA CC.808/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,CHALAKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- MURALI.P.K,S/O.KARTHIKEYAN,AGED 45 YEARS POYYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,ANNAMANADA,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. P.K.KUTTAN,S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,VENATTIL HOUSE,POOVATHUSSERY.P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.N.MANOJ FOR R1 SRI.P.D.JOSHY MON FOR R1 R2 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No.1557 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 28th Day of June, 2011 ORDER The challenge in this Crl.R.P is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, the learned counsel submitted that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and exorbitant. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner requires some time to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, and as per the findings of the courts below that the amount due is only 80,000/-, I am of the view that sentence imposed against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration and the compensation amount has to be enhanced considering the fact that the cheque in question is dated 5.2.2003. 3. In the result, this Crl.R.P is disposed of CRRP 1557/11 -2- confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 138 of the NI Act recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment i.e. till the rising of the court. As the substantial sentence is reduced considerably, the compensation fixed by the courts below is modified and enhanced to the tune of Rs.1,12,000/-, (Rs.one lakh and twelve thousand only) which he shall be paid within two months from today. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 29th August, 2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the enhanced compensation amount. It is made clear that the revision petitioner is free to pay the enhanced compensation either directly to the complainant or by depositing the same in the court, whichever, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If there is any default on the part of the petitioner in appearing before the trial court as directed above, the trial court is free to take coercive CRRP 1557/11 -3- steps against the revision petitioner to secure his presence and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the amount. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 29th August, 2011. This Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/-