IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 804 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.28/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOZHIKODE ST.20/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, THAMARASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: -------------------------------- SUDHARSAN K.C., S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN, KONNAKKAL HOUSE, CHOOTHUPARA P.O., PURAKKADI AMSOM DESOM SULTHAN BATHERI TALUK, WYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. ABDUL NAZAR, S/O. KUNHAYANIKOYA, PERUMPADAPPIL HOUSE, MANGAD P.O., UNNIKULAM VIA, IYYAD AMSOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673505. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No.804 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 18th 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, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and exorbitant and the same may be set aside and it is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner may be granted sufficient time to compensate the complainant. After having considered the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered positively. 3. In this case, two cheques each for Rs.75,000/- are involved and the same are pertained to the year 2007. The courts below found that the amount covered by the two cheques are due to the complainant and the petitioner has CRRP 804/11 2 not paid any amount to the complainant in spite of the fact that the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 16.1.2010. It is relevant to note that 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. Therefore, considering the above facts and the legal position, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration and the petitioner can be granted sufficient time to compensate the complainant and the complainant's interest is 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 N.I.Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment, i.e. till the rising of the court. In addition to that, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,77,500/-, within thee months from today, in default, he CRRP 804/11 3 is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrested and he is in custody and therefore he may be ordered to release on bail so as to enable him to pay the fine amount. If that be so, and if the petitioner is in custody, there will be a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thamarassery to release the petitioner on bail for a period of three months on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount and on further condition of depositing a sum of Rs.75,000/- within one month from the date of his release from jail. The petitioner, on his release on complying with the above conditions, he shall deposit the remaining amount of Rs.1,02,500/-(Rs.one lakh two thousand fifty only) within three months from today. On realisation of the entire fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.2500/- shall be deposited in the State Ex chequer. 6. If there is any default on the part of the petitioner in CRRP 804/11 4 depositing the balance amount of Rs.1,02,500/- within the stipulated period, 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 fine amount. This Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/-