IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 735 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.29/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, KOZHIKODE ST.490/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ANANDA KRISHNAN, S/O.UNNI KURUP, "ARATHI HOUSE", MORIKKARA POST, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANJAY, SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR, SRI.GLEN ANTONY. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S.SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO.LTD., CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY P.A.HOLDER BABU JOSE, SREEPADAM BUILDINGS, CALICUT, PIN-673 032. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 735 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th 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 some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. 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 Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] has held that in the Crl.R.PNO.735 of 2011 :-2-: 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 sentence of compensation ordered by the appellate court is modified and accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay compensation of `.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. within three months from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear Crl.R.PNO.735 of 2011 :-3-: before the trial court on 10th June,2011 to receive the modified sentence ordered by the appellate court and to pay the above enhanced compensation amount. 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 above compensation 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 compensation. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 10th June2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/