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. 1556 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.1018/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM CC.1647/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- E.KAMALUDEEN, PROPRIETOR OF CHILANKA JEWELLERY, NIYAS MANZIL, CHITTATTINKARA DESOM, AVANAVANCHERY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. A.MUHAMMED THAHA, BISMILLAH MANZIL, VENGODE P.O., KAIPACHI, KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR. 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. 1556 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June, 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') is the revision petitioner and the challenge in this Revision Petition is against the 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 as ordered by the appellate court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered positively and while granting time, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Crl.R.PNO.1556 of 2011 :-2-: Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] has held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. 3. Having regard to the facts and legal position, I am of the view that while granting some time to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation, the compensation amount can be enhanced slightly. 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 direction to pay compensation, the amount fixed by the appellate court is modified and accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) to the complainant under section 357(3) of Cr.P.C within three months from today and in default, he is directed to Crl.R.PNO.1556 of 2011 :-3-: undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 28th September, 2011 to receive the modified sentence ordered by the appellate court and to deposit the above enhanced amount of compensation. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court on the above date to receive the modified sentence fixed by the appellate court and to pay the compensation amount fixed by this Court, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and to realise the amount. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 28th September, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/- Crl.R.PNO.1556 of 2011 :-4-: kvm/-