IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1397 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CRA.NO. 62/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), THRISSUR S.T.NO. 2365/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------- V.V.SURESH,S/O.VELANDI,VAZHINADAKAL HOUSE,KIZHAKUMURI, PERNGOTTUKARA DESOM,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. M/S.URBAN CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, THRISSUR, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P.R.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, NADATHARA HOUSE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAIBY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1397 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2011 ORDER The accused in a prosecution for the offence Under Section 138 of the NI Act is the revision petitioner. The challenge is against his conviction and sentence for the said offence. 2. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no contention on merit but he requires some time to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 20.12.2004, that too, for an amount of Rs.75,000/-. As per the findings of the courts below which approved by this Court, the said amount is due to the complainant and the same is with the revision petitioner for the last 6 years. Therefore, while granting some time to the accused to pay the cheque amount, I am of the view that the interest of the complainant has also to be protected by enhancing the amount slightly. Crl.R.P.No.1397 of 2011 2 In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment has modified and fixed by the appellate court, the petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.96,200/-to the complainant within three months from today and in default, the petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.12,500/- in the trial court in terms of the order passed by the appellate court while suspending the execution of sentence. If that be so, and the said amount is retained in the trial court, the petitioner is entitled to get credit of that amount. In that case, the petitioner need to deposit the balance amount of Rs.83,700/- towards the payment of compensation fixed by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 01.09.2011 to receive the modified sentence and to pay the compensation amount. It is made clear that the petitioner is free to pay the compensation amount either directly to the complainant or by remitting the same in the trial court, Crl.R.P.No.1397 of 2011 3 whichever is subject to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with any of 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 1st September, 2011. The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/