IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2011 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 765 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.465/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), ALAPPUZHA CC.1008/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- P.N.THILAKAN,S/O.NARAYANAN,AGED 49 YEARS MULLAYIL HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE,AROOR MURI, AROOR.P.O,CHERTHALA TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SRI.A.V.CHARLES SRI.ANIL R.NATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.R.GANGADHARAN,S/O.RAMAN,AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,KALARIKKAL HOUSE,AROOR VILLAGE,AROOR MURI, AROOR.P.O,CHERTHALA TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688534. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTELD BY THE HOME SECRETARY THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.765 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 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 and sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed against the petitioner is unreasonable, petitioner may be granted sufficient time to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted 45 days time to pay the compensation amount fixed by the appellate court. 3. The cheque in question is dated 29.06.2007, that too, for an amount of Rs.45,000/-. Though the courts below have concurrently found that the said amount is due to the complainant, so far no amount is seen paid to the complainant. Thus, as per the record and findings of the courts below, which upheld by this Court, the said amount is with the revision Crl.R.P.NO.765 OF 2011 2 petitioner for the last 3 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. In the result, this 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 confirmed by the appellate court is modified and reduced the sentence into one day simple imprisonment, i.e, till the rising of the court. While confirming the direction to pay compensation, the compensation amount and the default sentence, the petitioner is granted 45 days time from today to pay the compensation amount. It is made clear that the default sentence fixed by the courts below will be attracted only in case of default in paying the compensation amount within 45 days from today. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 06.05.2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court as directed above, Crl.R.P.NO.765 OF 2011 3 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 compensation amount. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 6th May, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm