IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 689 of 2011() --------------------------- CRA.287/2010 of 3RD ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), THODUPUZHA ST.20/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA ............... PETITIONER / APPELLANT / ACCUSED : ---------------------------------------------------------- D.SURESH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, CHERADIYIL HOUSE, NAGAPUZHA,THODUPUZHA,PIN-686 668. BY ADV. SRI. THOMAS M. JACOB RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. MUTHOOT LEASING AND FINANCE LTD, THODUPUZHA BRANCH, NEAR INCOME TAX OFFICE, TEMPLE ROAD, PIN-685584, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA – 682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.689 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2011. ORDER The challenge in this Crl.R.P. is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner, who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that petitioner may be granted sufficient time to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission of the learned counsel requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 19.09.2008, that too, for an amount of Rs.2,79,074/-. Thus, as per the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court, which approved by this Court, the said amount is due to the complainant for the last 2 years. It is relevant to note that though the trial court imposed a sentence of three months simple imprisonment and directed to pay compensation, the appellate court has dismissed the appeal. Crl.R.P.NO.689 OF 2011 2 Though the amount is due to the complaint, so far nothing paid to the complainant and the petitioner now seeks time to pay the compensation. The apex court, in its recent decision in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (J.T.2010 (4) SC 457), has held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Having regard to the above facts and the legal position, I am of the view that while granting some time to pay the compensation and to receive the sentence, the compensation amount can be enhanced, considering the facts that the cheque amount is due for the last two years. In the result, this 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. While confirming the sentence of imprisonment, the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that the default sentence fixed and attracted only in case on default on the part of the petitioner in paying the compensation amount within three months time from today. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 08.06.2011 to receive Crl.R.P.NO.689 OF 2011 3 the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount as ordered by this court. It is made clear that the revision petitioner is free to pay the compensation amount either directly to the complainant or by remitting the same trial court subject to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with the above condition, the trial court is free to take steps to execute the sentence and for realisation of compensation amount. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 8th June, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm