IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 448 of 2011(A) ----------------------------- CRA.72/2005 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR ST.1532/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- SREEMATHY, TEACHER, ST.THRESAS G.L.P.SCHOOL, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE & DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.PUDUVEETTIL VELAYUDHAN, KIZHUPILLIKARA, THRISSUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C.NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P No.448 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The challenge in this revision petition is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner, who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under Sect 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction and the sentence, the learned counsel submitted that breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be accepted. 3. The cheque in question pertains to the year 2005; that too for an amount of Rs.35,000/-. But so far the amount is not paid to the complainant in spite of the two judgments of the courts below. In Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457], the apex court court has held that in the matter of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punishment provisions. In the light of the above legal position and the facts indicated above, I Crl.R.P No.448 of 2011 2 am of the view that while granting some time to pay the compensation, the compensation amount can be enhanced slightly, considering the fact that the cheque in question is pertained to the year 2005. 4. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. While confirming the sentence of imprisonment as fixed by the court below and the direction to pay compensation and the default sentence, the compensation amount is enhanced to the tune of Rs.43,000/- and accordingly the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.43,000/- (Rupees Forty three thousand only) to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C within a period of three months from today and in default she is directed to undergo S.I for a period of two months. Accordingly the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 18.05.2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to pay the modified compensation amount. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below and to pay the compensation amount, the trial court is free Crl.R.P No.448 of 2011 3 to take coercive steps against the revision petitioner to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the compensation amount. The coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 18.05.2011. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner today itself. (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) rtr/-