IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 873 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.315/2009 OF THER ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, (ADHOCFAST TRACK -II, PATHANAMTHITTA) ST.199/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------------- M.A.PRASANNA KUMAR, MELETHIL HOUSE, MYLAPRA TOWN PO, NOW RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, KOIPURAM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JINU PHILIP, PANAMUTTIL HOUSE, MEKKOZHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 873 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25 th day of March, 2011 ORDER 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. Crl.R.PNO.873 of 2011 :-2-: 3. The cheque in question is dated 16.9.2007 that too for an amount of Rs.2,35,000/-. The trial court sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court which was confirmed by the appellate and the same is approved by this court also. l 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 Crl.R.PNO.873 of 2011 :-3-: by the courts below. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment as as ordered by the courts below and approved by this court, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy thousand 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 three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 24 th June, 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. Crl.R.PNO.873 of 2011 :-4-: Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 24 th June, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-