IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1098 of 2011() ------------------------------ (CRA NO.119/2008 OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, WAYANAD, KALPETTA) (ST NO.825/2007 OF THE JUDL.FIRST CLAS MAGISTRATE -I, SULTAN BATHERY) REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL SALEEM, S/O.AHMED KABEER, AGED 38 YEARS, PUTHENVEEDU, CHENDAKUNI, PURACKADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S.DHANASHILPI CHITS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER N.MADHAVAN, M/S.DHANASHILPI CHITS PVT.LTD., SULTHAN BATHERY P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK-673 592 R1 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1098 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of April, 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 imposed against the revision petitioner is exorbitant and unreasonable and the same may be set aside. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the Compensation amount as ordered by the appellate court. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved Crl.R.PNO.1098/11 :-2-: in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered positively and while granting time, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. 4. In the present case, the cheque in question is dated 29.11.2006, that too for an amount of Rs.31,800/-. Though the trial court has imposed a sentence of three months simple imprisonment, the appellate court has reduced the same to one month simple imprisonment. The Honourable Apex Court in the 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the view that while modifying the sentence of imprisonment, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is Crl.R.PNO.1098/11 :-3-: 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 by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is further modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment, i.e., till the rising of the court. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is further directed to pay sum of Rs.38,000/- (Rs.Thirty eight thousand only) to the complainant as compensation under section 357(3) Cr.P.C within 45 days from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 27th May, 2011 to receive the modified sentence ordered by this Court and to pay the enhanced compensation amount. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court on the above date to receive the modified sentence fixed by this Court and to pay the Crl.R.PNO.1098/11 :-4-: compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and to realise the compensation amount. It is made clear that the revision petitioner is free to pay the amount either directly to the complainant or by remitting the same in the court below whichever subject to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 27th May, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-