IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAIHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1232 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.185/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM ST.1067/2007 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: --------------------- BINU DEVARAJAN NAIR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O DEVARAJAN NAIR, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, NORTH MYLAKKAD, MANNANALLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENTS: STATE/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S MUTHOOT LEASING & FINANCE LTD., CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SUBHASH. R1 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1232 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 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. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no contention on merit but his grievance is with respect to the sentence imposed against him and it is further submitted that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the fine amount to be fixed by this court. 3. The cheque in question is dated 20.7.2007. As per the findings of the courts below, the amount covered by the cheque is with the revision petitioner for the last three years. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision Crl.R.P NO.1232 of 2011 :-2-: 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. Having regard to the above facts and legal position, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration and at the same time, interest of the complainant has also to be protected by fixing proper amount towards fine and compensation. 4. 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, but the sentence of imprisonment is modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment, i.e. till the rising of the court. In addition to the above modified sentence of imprisonment, the petitioner is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.69,600/- within three months Crl.R.P NO.1232 of 2011 :-3-: from today and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.14,600/- in the trial court in terms of the order passed by the appellate Court while suspending the execution of the sentence. If that be so and the said amount is retained in the trial court, the petitioner is entitled to get credit of that amount. Hence, the petitioner need to deposit a further sum of Rs.55,000/- in the trial court within the above period. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 23rd August, 2011 to receive the modified sentence and to deposit the balance fine amount, i.e. Rs.55,000/- out of Rs.69,600/-. In case of any default on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court and in depositing the fine amount on the date of his appearance, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the Crl.R.P NO.1232 of 2011 :-4-: revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and to realise the fine amount. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.68,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 23rd August, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-