IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3017 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.158/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THODUPUZHA ST.76/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THODUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SASIDHARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, KANDATHINKARA (H), PANNIMATTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. SARASAMMA SASIDHARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, KANDATHINKARA, PANNIMATTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD., 356, ARCOT ROAD, KODAMBAKAM, CHENNAI - 600 024. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No.3017 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 14th Day of October, 2010 ORDER The challenge is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioners under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the cheque in question was given as a security, and not as claimed by the complainant. In the light of the decision of this Court in ICDS LTD V. BEENA SHABEER (2002 (3) KLT 218 (SC), and Moideen v. Johny (2006(3) KLT 62 Case No.85), even if the cheque is given as a security, liability under section 138 of the NI Act will be attracted. In the light of the above decisions, the contention of the learned counsel cannot be sustained. 3. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction and concurrent findings of the courts below, the learned counsel submitted that a breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances CRL.R.P.3017/10 -2- involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered favourably, and three months time can be granted but subject to slight enhancement in the compensation amount. In the result, this Crl.R.P is disposed of confirming the conviction recorded by the courts below for the offence under section 138 of the N.I.Act. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment and order to pay compensation, the compensation amount is enhanced to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/- and both the revision petitioners together are directed to pay the said amount within a period of three months from today and in case of any default in paying the compensation amount, they are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly the revision petitioners are directed to appear before the trial court on 14th January, 2011 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. If there is any default on the part of the revision petitioners in appearing before the trial court as directed above, the trial court is free to take coercive steps against the revision CRL.R.P.3017/10 -3- petitioners to secure their presence and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the amount. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioners shall be deferred till 14.1.2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/-