IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 446 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.29/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) I, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.359/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,ADOOR .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- VENU K.NAIR, S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, VAISHNAVAM, IKKAD, KODUMON P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ., SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DHANALEKSHMI BANK LTD., ADOOR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESENT BRANCH MANAGER, S.GEETHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 446 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The challenge in this Crl.R.P. is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the courts below is unreasonable and exorbitant and it is further submitted that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount fixed by the courts below. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] wherein it was held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory Crl.R.PNO446 of 2011 :-2-: aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects, I am of the view that while granting some time 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, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court below is modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment i.e., till the rising of the court and the revision petitioner is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant within two months from today. In case of default in paying the above compensation amount within the above period, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 8th April,2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment Crl.R.PNO446 of 2011 :-3-: and to pay the compensation amount as ordered against him. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount on the above date, 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 8th April,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/