IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3028 of 2010 () ----------------------------- (CRA.415/2007 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANATHAPURAMUM CC.5/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, NEDUMANGAD ) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.AJAYA KUMAR, S/O. KESAVA PILLAI, AMBIKA VILASOM, NILAMA, KUTTICKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THIRUVANANTHAUPRAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., FORT.P.O., REP. BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, T.G.SURESH KUMAR.PIN-695023. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.SUMANGALA P.N. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.3028 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below. 2. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has no contention on merit but his grievance is with respect to the unreasonable sentence imposed against him. The counsel further submitted that the revision petitioner is ready to pay the compensation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered favourably. 3. In the present case, the cheque in question is dated 5.9.2005 that too for an amount of Rs.10,500/- and as per the findings of the court below, the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 5 years. The apex court in a recent 2 Crl. R.P.No.3028 of 2010 decision reported in Damodar S.Prabhu V. Sayed 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. Considering the above facts and settled legal position, I am of the view that, while granting some time to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation, the amount can be enhanced slightly. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the courts below, the compensation amount ordered by the appellate court u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. is enhanced to the tune of Rs.13,500/-, which shall be paid by the revision petitioner, within 45 days from today and in case of default in paying the compensation amount within the stipulated time, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to 3 Crl. R.P.No.3028 of 2010 appear before the trial court on 16.12.2010, to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount as fixed by this court. In case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in paying 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 awarded against the revision petitioner. The execution of warrant if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 16.12.2010. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/