IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 831 of 2011() ------------------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------ P.K.CHANDRAN, S/O.THAI, AGED 44 YEARS, PADATH HOUSE, PERIKALLOOR POST, NEAR PERIKALLOOR UP SCHOOL, PULPALLY, BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS(S): ------------------------- 1. M/S. DHANASHILPI CHITS PVT.LTD., SULTHAN BATHERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.P.M.VENUNATHAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT KUPPADI, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.N.MADHAVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, CHENNAMKUNNEL HOUSE, KUPPADI POST, S.BATHERY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 831 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 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 the petitioner may be given some breathing time to deposit the amount. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner had already deposited a sum of `.10,000/- and that also may be given credit to while disposing of the Crl.R.P. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted three months time to compensate the complainant and instead of compensation, the petitioner can be Crl.R.PNO.831 of 2011 :-2-: sentenced to pay fine considering the fact that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of `.10,000/-. 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 petitioner is directed to pay a fine of `.90,260/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty only) within three months from today and the direction to pay compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. is set aside. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 21st June,2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to deposit the fine amount. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of `.10,000/- in the Sessions Court vide., receipt No.58/09-10 dated 22.3.2010 issued from the District and Sessions Court, Kalpetta. If the said amount is retained in Crl.R.PNO.831 of 2011 :-3-: the court, the petitioner is entitled to get credit of that amount and towards the fine fixed by this Court, the petitioner need to deposit a further sum of `.80,260/- in the trial court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court and depositing the said amount, 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. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of `.90,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of `.260/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 21st June,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/