IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 206 of 2011() ------------------------------------------ CRA.86/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC I),MANJERI. ST.2042/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,NILAMBUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.ABDU, S/O.MUHAMMED, KOTTAPARAMBAN HOUSE, THEKKUMKUNNU, P.O.KARULAYI, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CHEMBRA DEVADAS, S/O.KRISHNAN, CHEMBRA HOUSE, KARULAYI P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 329. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C.NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 206 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th 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 as ordered by the appellate court. 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. 3. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner Crl.R.PNO.206 of 2011 :-2-: 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 fine ordered by the appellate court is modified and accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,62,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand only) within three 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 9th May,2011 to receive the modified sentence ordered by the appellate court and to deposit the above enhanced fine 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 deposit the fine 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 Crl.R.PNO.206 of 2011 :-3-: Rs.5,60,000/- 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 9th May,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/