IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH, 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 879 of 2011 ---------------------------------- (CRA.199/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.78/2009 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II(ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF), KASARAGOD) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------- ABDUL MANAF N.K., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT HARITHAKAM, NULLIPADY, ANANGOOR, KASARGODE P.O., KASARGODE TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------- 1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, 356, ARCOT ROAD, KODAMPAKOM, CHENNAI-600 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI. RAJESH P.V., S/O. POKKAN, KARAKUZHY HOUSE, AJANNUR P.O., ANANDASRAM VIA., KASARGODE DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 879 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th 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 the 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. This submission, according to me, deserves serious consideration. According to me, while granting some time to pay the compensation, the compensation amount can be enhanced slightly, considering the fact that the cheque in question is dated 13.9.2008, that too for an amount of Rs.92,442/-. Crl.R.P.No.879 of 2011 :-2-: 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 fixed by the trial court, confirmed by the appellate court, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. within three months from today and in default, the revision petitioner 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 29th June,2011 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. It is made clear that the revision petitioner is free to pay the amount of compensation directly to the complainant or by remitting the same in the trial court whichever subject to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner to receive the Crl.R.P.No.879 of 2011 :-3-: sentence and to pay 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. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 29th June,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.879 of 2011 :-4-: 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 revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. The cheque in question is dated 2.4.2004 that too for an amount of Rs.43,000/-. The trial court though sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo six months simple imprisonment, the appellate court reduced the same to one day simple imprisonment. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and in the light of the decision reported ........., I am of the view that while granting some time, the compensation amount can be enhanced. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is Crl.R.P.No.879 of 2011 :-5-: 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 revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of RS.60,500/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of the CrP.C. within three months from today and in default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to