IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1478 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.512/2007 of the ADDL.SESSIONS COURT,IRINJALAKUDA ST.332/2005 of ADDL.MUNSIFF & JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- T.G.VENUGOPAL, S/O.GOVINDAN, THAIKKUTTATHIL HOUSE, LAKSHMI GOVINDAN, 18/529, MADAMA BUILDING, PALLICKAL ROAD, THOPPUMPADI, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. LUCKY HIRE PURCHASE, IRINJALAKUDA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, LIJO, S/O.OUSEPPUNNY, THOZHUTHUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEVOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR, PIN-680121. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. NO.1478 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011. O R D E R Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner who face the prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, he preferred this revision petition. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere to the order of conviction, the learned counsel submitted that a breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount fixed by the court below. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. 3. However, it is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 24.1.05 that too for an amount of Rs.1,84,212/-. As per the findings of the courts below which approved by this Court, the said amount is due to the complainant. Therefore, according to me, while granting sometime, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. Crl.R.P. NO.1478 OF 2011 2 In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction and the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner. The petitioner is granted three months time to compensate the complainant. But the compensation amount is enhanced to the tune of Rs. 2,37,475/- which he shall pay to the complainant under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C within 3 months from today and in default he 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 12.9.2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and also to pay the compensation amount as fixed by this Court. It is made clear that the revision petitioner is free to pay the above amount of compensation to the complainant either directly or by depositing the same in the trial court whichever subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner to appear before the trial court as directed above and paying the compensation amount the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the petitioner and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the enhanced compensation amount. The coercive steps, Crl.R.P. NO.1478 OF 2011 3 if any, pending against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance till 12.9.2011. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. mns