IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3071 of 2010 ( D) ------------------------------ (CRA.90/2006 of ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT, MAVELIKARA CC.831/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.DIVAKARAN, GURU KRIPA, KALLUMMOODU, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR SRI.PADMALAYAN.P.P. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 56 YEARS, HANS COTTAGE, KEERIKKAD SOUTH MURI, KEERIKKAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.3071 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010. O R D E R Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner, who is an accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, has preferred this revision petition. 2. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has no contention on merit but his grievance is with respect to the unreasonable sentence imposed against him. The counsel further submitted that the revision petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant, for which some time is required. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered favourably. 3. In the present case, the cheque in question is dated 30.6.2004 that too for an amount of Rs.1,66,520/- and as per the findings of the court below, the said amount is with the revision 2 Crl. R.P.No.3071 of 2010 petitioner for the last 6 years. The apex court in a recent decision 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. Considering the above facts and settled legal position, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner can be modified and reduced and while granting some time to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation, the amount can be enhanced slightly. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the courts below is modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment ie., till the rising of the court. Whereas, the compensation amount ordered by the appellate court u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C. is enhanced to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-, which shall be paid by the revision petitioner, within 3 months from today 3 Crl. R.P.No.3071 of 2010 and in case of default in paying the compensation amount within the stipulated time, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 2.2.2011, to receive the sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount as fixed by this court. In case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in paying 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 awarded against the revision petitioner. The execution of warrant if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 2.2.2011. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/