IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3243 of 2010 () ------------------------------ ( CRA.283/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.821/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- P.RAMESHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN.P, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, GOVT.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATHIL.P.O, MATHIL,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.SREEVINAYAKAN.K.V RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. V.PRASANTH,AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.K.P.VAMADEVAN, MANNIKOTH HOUSE, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, POST RAMDAS NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 3243 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, this revision petition is preferred. 2. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no contention on merit, but he requires some time to pay the compensation amount. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that since the revision petitioner, being a school teacher and working in a Government School, the substantive sentence imposed against him may be set aside and the petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant, but he requires some time for the same. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires serious consideration. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010 :-2-: 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. It is also relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 29.9.2006 and as per the findings of the courts below, the amount covered by the cheque in question belongs to the complainant. Therefore, I am of the view that the sentence ordered by the revision petitioner requires some modification and while granting breathing time to deposit the amount, the 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, in modification of the sentence ordered by the court below and in suppression of the substantive sentence, the sentence is confined to fine only. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,25,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) and the revision petitioner is further directed to deposit the said amount within 45 days from Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010 :-3-: today. In case of any default in depositing the fine amount, within the above time limit, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/accused is directed to deposit the fine amount of Rs.2,25,000/- on or before 17.12.2010. On realisation of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the balance shall be paid to the State Exchequer. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in making the deposit of fine amount on or before 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 petitioner shall be deferred till 17.12.2010. V.K.Mohanan, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010 :-5-: Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2010 Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010 :-6-: Accordingly, 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 now ordered by the lower appellate court is confirmed and the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.,000/- which shall be paid by the revision petitioner within three months from today and in case of any default in paying the amount, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and on realisation of the compensation amount, the entire amount shall be paid to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010 :-7-: Accordingly, the revision petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the trial court on .11.2010 to receive the sentence and to deposit the compensation amount. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court and making the deposit of 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 petitioner shall be deferred till .11.2010. Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010 :-8-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2010 Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010 :-9-: