IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2441 of 2004(A) ------------------------------- CRA.371/2003 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.273/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- RAJESH K. S/O.KRISHNAN, WORKING AT BHARATH BEEDI WORKS, THALIPADUPPU, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE. -------------------- 1. RAGHUVEER KAMATH, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HOLDER OF M/S.ICDS LTD, KASARAGOD BRANCH,. 2. STATE REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU FOR R1 SRI.K.S.RAJESH FOR R1 R2 BY P.P. SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 2441 of 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 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') is the revision petitioner and the challenge in this Revision Petition is against the conviction and sentence, imposed on him 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 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. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed CRL.R.P.NO.2441/04 2 Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] has held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. 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 direction to pay compensation ordered by the appellate court is modified and accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the complainant under section 357(3) Cr.P.C within 45 days from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment CRL.R.P.NO.2441/04 3 for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 15th September,2011 to receive the modified sentence as ordered by the appellate court and to deposit 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 deposit the 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 amount to be paid to the complainant. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 15th September, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. CRL.R.P.NO.2441/04 4 Kvm/-