IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3151 of 2010 (D) ------------------------------ (CRA.324/2007 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.1202/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN CRL.A.324/2007/ACCUSED IN CC.1202/2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VINOD KUMAR.B, S/O.LATE BHASKARA PILLAI, PANAYIL VEEDU (MINI BHAVANAM), KIZHAVOOR, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CRL.A.NO.324/2007 COMPLAINANT IN C.C. 1202/2003 RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CRL.A.NO.523/2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJENDRAN PILLAI.K, S/O.KUNJURAMAN PILLAI, RAMACHANDRA VILASOM, KARUMANDAL, PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.3151 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010. O R D E R The challenge is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has no contention on merit but his grievance is against the unreasonable and exorbitant period of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner and the counsel further submitted that the revision petitioner seeks some time to pay the fine amount. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I find no reason to deny the above request and while granting some time to pay the fine, the amount can be enhanced considering the fact that the cheque in question is dated 30.1.2003 that too for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 7 years. The 2 Crl. R.P.No.3151 of 2010 apex court in a recent 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. Considering the above facts and the settled legal position, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner can be modified and at the same time while granting some time to the revision petitioner to pay the fine, the amount can be enhanced slightly. 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. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petition is reduced to one day simple imprisonment ie., imprisonment till the rising of the court and the revision petitioner is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,75,000/-, within 1 month from today and in case of default in paying the fine amount within the stipulated time, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Accordingly, the revision 3 Crl. R.P.No.3151 of 2010 petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 2.12.2010. 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. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- 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. The execution of warrant if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 2.12.2010. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/