IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3016 of 2010 () ------------------------------ CRA.48/2008 of ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), PATHANAMTHITTA ST.113/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAYACHANDRAN.K.A., S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, CHAITHANYA, CHINA JUNCTION, KONNI. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SOMANADAN, SIVAVILASAM, ATHUMPUMKULAM P.O., KONNI 689691. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.SUMANGALA P.N. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.3016 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010. O R D E R The challenge in this revision petition is against the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the revision petitioner require some time to pay the fine amount and it is also a submission of the learned counsel that, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court below is unreasonable and exorbitant and that may be set asided. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 9.11.2006 and as per the findings of the Court below, the amount covered by the said cheque is owed to the complainant but the same is with the revision petitioner for the last 4 years. The apex court in a recent decision reported in Damodar S.Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. 2 Crl. R.P.No.3016 of 2010 (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'. Therefore, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court below can be modified and while granting some time to pay the fine amount, the amount can be enhanced slightly considering the fact that the cheque in question is dated 9.11.2006. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Thus, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court below is modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment ie., till the rising of the court. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,80,000/-, within 3 months from today and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount fixed by this court on or before 13.1.2011 in the trial court. On realisation of the fine 3 Crl. R.P.No.3016 of 2010 amount, a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be paid to the State Exchequer. In case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in paying 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 awarded against the revision petitioner. The execution of warrant if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 13.1.2011. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/