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. 334 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.101/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)III, PATHANAMTHITTA ST.765/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- V.N.JANARDANAN, VILAYIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR.P.O., KONNI, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. NALINI RAMAKRISHNAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOODAL.P.O., AMBALAPPADI, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 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. 334 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 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 the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court below is highly arbitrary and illegal and some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the fine 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. It is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 1.12.2006 that too for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Crl.R.P.No.334 of 2011 :-2-: 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 the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration and while granting some time to the petitioner pay the fine, the fine amount can also be enhanced so as to compensate the complainant adequately. 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 against the revision petitioner is modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment i.e., till the rising of the court and the fine amount fixed by the court below is enhanced to the tune of Rs.61,000/- Crl.R.P.No.334 of 2011 :-3-: (Rupees Sixty One Thousand only) and the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount within three months from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 10th May,2011 to receive the modified sentence and to deposit the fine amount. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner to receive the sentence 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. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.60,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the balance amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 10th May,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.334 of 2011 :-4-: