IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1011 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.47/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC), PALAKKAD CC.910/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- JAYAKRISHNAN, S/O.MANIKKEN MASTER, KAMMANTHARA, MUDAPPALLUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE --------------------- 1. BABY VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, KALAMPATTOM HOUSE, THENIDUKKU, VADAKKENCHERRY, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1011 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 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 compensation amount. In the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 20.8.2003 that too for an amount of Rs.75,000/-. The trial court though sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo three months simple CRRP 1011/11 2 imprisonment, the appellate court reduced the same to one day simple imprisonment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] wherein it was held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects, I am of the view that while granting some time to pay the compensation, the compensation amount can be enhanced. 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 imprisonment as modified and fixed by the appellate court, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only only) to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. within three months from today and in default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to CRRP 1011/11 3 appear before the trial court on 11th July, 2011 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 11th July, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-