IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 325 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.721/2008 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.1621/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------- C.K.IBRAHIM, S/O.UNNIKKAMMATH, PERUVAYIL VEEDU, NEAR BOYS HIGH SCHOOL GROUND, P.O.WADAKKANCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. K.YOOSUF, S/O.YOOSUF, KANNAMKULATHINGAL VEEDU, KALLADIPATTA AMSOM AND DESOM, P.O.KALLADIPATTA, ONGALLUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN - 679 303. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 325 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 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 fine amount. I find no reason to reject the above request. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed 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 the above legal Crl.R.PNO.325 of 2011 :-2-: position, I am of the view that while granting some time to the revision petitioner to pay the fine, the fine amount can be enhanced slightly, since the cheque in question is dated 1.7.2006 and such a huge amount is due to the complainant for the last four years. 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 fine ordered by the appellate court, the fine amount is enhanced and accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) in the trial court within three months from today. In default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the above enhanced fine amount on or before 2nd May, 2011. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in making the deposit of fine amount on or before Crl.R.PNO.325 of 2011 :-3-: the above date, 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 fine amount. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 2nd May, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/