IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 790 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.539/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA ST.3354/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------------- JYOTHY BAVA S/O.SANKARAN, LAKSHMI AUTOSPARES, V.O.ROAD, BADAGARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------- 1. T.JAYAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, PUNATHILL HOUSE, CHORODE, VATAKARA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF EKRALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.C.BHASKARAN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.790 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th 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 therefore a lenient view may be taken and the 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 said submission of the learned counsel requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 15.07.2005, that too, for an amount of Rs.60,000/-. As per the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court, which approved by this Court, the said amount is due to the complainant for the last 5 years. The appellate court while disposing the appeal reduced the sentence Crl.R.P.NO.790 OF 2011 2 of 6 months imprisonment into one month. Though the amount is due to the complaint, so far nothing and the petitioner now seeks time to pay the compensation. 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. Having regard to the above facts and the legal position, I am of the view that the sentence requires re- consideration and while granting some time to pay the compensation and to receive the sentence, the compensation amount can be enhanced, considering the facts that the cheque amount is due for the last five years. 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, while the sentence of imprisonment modified and fixed by the appellate court is further reduced into one day simple imprisonment, i.e, till the rising of the court and also while confirming the order to pay compensation out of fine, the fine amount is enhanced to the tune of Rs.67,500/- and the petitioner is directed to deposit the amount of fine within three months from today and in case of Crl.R.P.NO.790 OF 2011 3 default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 17.06.2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the fine amount as ordered by this court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with the above condition, the trial court is free to take steps to execute the sentence and for realisation of 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 Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.2,500/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 17th June, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm