IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1949 of 2010() ------------------------------ CC.441/2006 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KOTHAMANGALAM. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT :- --------------------------------------------------------- DR. JINO, S/O. JOY, THAZHATHOTTU HOUSE, KAVALANGAD KARA, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED AND STATE :- ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. K. MOHANDAS, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CHOTTANIKKARA, NOW RESIDING AT KUTTIYIL VEEDU, VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI.P.O, RANNI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031. ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.R.VENUGOPAL FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1949 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July 2010 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred by the complainant in a prosecution for the offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as he is aggrieved by the inadequate sentence imposed against the accused though he is found guilty under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act wherein the cheque amount covers an amount of Rs.67,000/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent. 3. Going by the trial court judgment it can be seen that even though the respondent/accused is found guilty under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against him is only simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and the compensation amount fixed is Crl.R.P.No.1949 of 2010 : 2 : only to an amount equal to the cheque amount ie; Rs.67,000/- that too without imposing any default sentence. 4. Recently, in the decision in Abbas v. Sabu Joseph [2010 (2) KLT 943 (SC)], the Apex Court has held that the sentence of imprisonment can be ordered in case of default in paying compensation awarded under Sec.357(3). In the present case, the cheque in question is dated 30.4.2006. Due to the dishonour of the cheque for want of sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused, the complainant was forced to initiate legal steps and he was prosecuting the case because of the negligence and default on the part of the accused in paying the cheque amount. On conviction, of course, the sentence of imprisonment is not mandatory but the court can impose a sentence of fine, which can be fixed as equal to the double of the cheque amount. But in the present case, the compensation fixed is only Rs.67,000/-, an amount shown in the cheque in question and the imprisonment of sentence is Crl.R.P.No.1949 of 2010 : 3 : only till the rising of the court. No default sentence also fixed. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially in the light of the Apex Court decision in Abbas v. Sabu Joseph and Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H, I am of the view that while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court the compensation amount can be enhanced slightly and default sentence can also be fixed. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of directing the accused/respondent to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court as ordered by the trial court and he is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the revision petitioner/complainant under Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C. within one month from today. In case any failure in paying the compensation amount within the above stipulated time, the respondent/accused is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Crl.R.P.No.1949 of 2010 : 4 : Accordingly the accused/respondent is directed to appear before the trial court on or before 7th August, 2010 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. In case of any failure on the part of the accused/respondent in appearing before the court below as directed above and in making the deposit of compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the accused and to execute the sentence awarded against him for the realization of the compensation amount, to be paid to the revision petitioner. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt