IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1608 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.29/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK-1, TRIVANDRUM ST.264/2006 of 2006 of JFCM COURT-VII, TRIVANDRUM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------- SATHEESAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN NAIR S.K.TYRE WORKS, PEYADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. A.BALAKRISHNAN, VILAYIL VEEDU PUTHENKOTTAH, KURIYATHI,MANACAUD VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1608 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of June, 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') is the revision petitioner and the challenge in this Revision Petition is against the 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 is exorbitant and unreasonable and also submitted that the petitioner may be granted some breathing time to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved 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. Crl.R.PNO.1608 of 2011 :-2-: 3. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 12.12.2000 and a sum of Rs.45,000/- covered by the cheque in question is with the revision petitioner for the last 10 years. 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. In the light of the facts indicated above and in view of the decision of the Apex Court , I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration and while granting some time to the revision petitioner, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision Crl.R.PNO.1608 of 2011 :-3-: petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the courts below is reduced into one day simple imprisonment, i.e. till the rising of the court. As the sentence is reduced substantially, I am of the view that the fine amount fixed by the courts below can be enhanced considering the fact that the cheque amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 10 years. Accordingly, in modification of the sentence of fine, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.67,500/- within three months from today, in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 27th September, 2011 to receive the modified sentence and to deposit the above enhanced fine amount as ordered by this Court. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in Crl.R.PNO.1608 of 2011 :-4-: appearing before the trial court on the above date to receive the modified sentence and to deposit the fine 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 fine amount. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.65,000/- 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 27th September, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-