IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 930 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.375/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS FAST TRACK (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA CC.14/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SAJI KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN PILLAI, SOBHANALAYAM, PALACHUVADU, PULIYOOR.P.O., CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. JOSE VARGHESE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.GEEVARGHESE, MOOKKATH BUNGALOW, ERAMATHOOR.P.O., MANNAR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 930 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day 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 compensation amount. In the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 16.12.2006 that too for an amount of Rs.35,000/-. The trial court though Crl.R.PNO.930 of 2011 :-2-: sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo three months simple imprisonment, the appellate court reduced the same to one day simple imprisonment. 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 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. 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 revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees fourty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. within three months from Crl.R.PNO.930 of 2011 :-3-: 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 30th June, 2011 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner to receive the 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 30th June, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-