IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1372 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.265/2009 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ST.2183/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV (MOBILE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- R.BHASKARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI, LIFT OPERATOR, ELECTRICAL NORTH SECTION, REVENUE BLOCK, PUBLIC OFFICE, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. USHAKUMARY, D/O.LEKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, GOVERNMENT QUARTERS NO.44/537, MELARANNOOR, KARAMANA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695002. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1372 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 ORDER The accused in a prosecution for the offence Under Section 138 of the NI Act is the revision petitioner. The challenge is against his conviction and sentence for the said offence. 2. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted sufficient time to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 05.06.2006 and that too for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. As per the findings of the courts below which approved by this Court, the said amount is due to the complainant and the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 5 years. Therefore, according to me, while granting some time to pay fine amount, the fine amount has to be enhanced slightly, so as to protect the interest of the complainant especially when the substantial sentence is only for one day, i.e., till the rising of the court. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment as fixed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court, the fine amount fixed by the courts below is enhanced to the tune of Rs.62,500/-. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.62,500/-, in addition to the substantial sentence of one day simple imprisonment, within 3 months from today and in default he is directed to under go simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 31.8.2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to deposit the fine as ordered by this Court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with any of the above condition, the trial court is free to take steps to execute the sentence and for realisation of fine amount. On realisation of the fine amount a sum of Rs.60,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.2,500/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 31st August, 2011. The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/