IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3945 of 2010() --------------------------------------- ( CRA.654/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ST.1548/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE), KOTTAYAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ A.KABIR @ AHAMMED KABIR, SREYAS BHAVANAM, PUNNATHARA (W) P.O., ETTUMANOOR, RESIDING AT MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SEMINARY ROAD, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.K.MOHANAN, KONDATTU HOUSE, M.L.ROAD, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 3945 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 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') approached this Court by preferring the above revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence, imposed 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 fine 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. 3. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 14.6.2005 for an amount of Rs.1,65,000/-. As per the findings of the court below, which are approved by Crl.R.PNO.3945 of 2010 :-2-: this Court, the said amount is due to the complainant. Therefore, according to me, while granting breathing time to pay the fine, the fine amount can be enhanced slightly considering the fact that the amount is due for the last five years. 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 sentence of fine ordered by the appellate court is modified and accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay fine of `.2,06,250/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Six Thousand and Two Hundred and Fifty only) within three months from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 16th June,2011 to receive the modified sentence ordered by the appellate court Crl.R.PNO.3945 of 2010 :-3-: and to deposit the above enhanced fine 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 fine 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 fine. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of `.2,00,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of `.6,250/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 16th June,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/