IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1511 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.328/2010 of I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.1320/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SANTHOSH,S/O.RETHNAKARAN, PULUSSEIKIZHAKKATHIL,ADINADU THEKKUMURI, ADINADU VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SIVARAMA PILLAI,S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, PUTHOOR VEEDU,ADINAD THEKKUMURI, ADINAD PULUSSEIKIZHAKKATHIL,KARUNAGAPPALLY. R1 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1511 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated the 15th Day of June, 2011 ORDER The challenge in this Crl.R.P is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, the learned counsel submitted that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and exorbitant. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that a breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to compensate the complainant. 3. While considering the above request of the learned counsel, it is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 23.7.2004, that too for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and that the courts below have concurrently found that the CRRP No.1511/2011 2 said amount is due to the complainant. Thus it can be seen that the above amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 7 years. The Apex Court, in its recent decision in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (J.T.2010 (4) SC 457), has held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Having regard to the facts indicated above and the settled legal position, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration and while granting time to the petitioner to pay the compensation amount, interest of the complainant has also to be protected. 4. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 138 of the NI Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered against CRRP No.1511/2011 3 the petitioner by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is again modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment, i.e till the rising of the court. As the substantive sentence is modified and reduced substantially, I am of the view that the compensation amount fixed by the courts below can be enhanced considering the fact that the amount is due for the last 7 years. Accordingly, in modification of the sentence to pay compensation, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- to the complainant under section 357(3) Cr.P.C. within three months from today, in default, the 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 15 th September, 2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the enhanced compensation amount. If there is any default on the part CRRP No.1511/2011 4 of the petitioner in appearing before the trial court as directed above, the trial court is free to take coercive steps against the revision petitioner to secure his presence and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the amount. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 15 th September, 2011. This Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. kvm/-