IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1718 of 2011( ) ------------------------------ CRA.369/2004 of THE ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), THALASSERY CC.548/2002 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MATTANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- K.J.MICHAEL, (WRONGLY TYPED IN APPELLATE JUDGEMENT AS E.J.MICHAEL), S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 51 YEARS, KALAPURAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.MANIKADAVU, ULICKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SRI.M.X.ANTONY LIJO RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------ 1. DEVASSIA, S/O.MANI, PENDANATH HOUSE, NUCHIYAD AMSOM, P.O.MANIKKADAVU, ULICKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN: 670 705 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.1718 OF 2011 (D) ---------------------- ------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Revision is by the accused convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for short, the 'N.I.Act', concurrently, by the two inferior courts. 2. Notice given, the respondent/complainant has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused refrained from challenging the conviction on merits knowing fully well the limited scope of interference over finding of fact entered by the inferior courts in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. However, a request is being made for extension of time to pay off the balance amount fixed as compensation stating that as per the interim order passed by this Court, one half of the amount awarded as compensation has already been deposited. The substantive term of imprisonment imposed for the offence with Crl.R.P.No.1718/2011 2 which the accused was convicted is also sought to be modified submitting that the amount covered by the cheque could not be paid within time and it was dishonoured due to the financial difficulties by the accused. I do not find any exceptional circumstances in the present case to impose a punishment of substantive term of imprisonment for three months against the petitioner/accused, an offender found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The dishonour of the cheque giving rise to the prosecution may arise for reasons beyond the contemplation of the drawer at the time of making and handing over the instrument. So much so, in the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying punishment awarding a prison term, normally, an offender for the aforesaid offence need not be mulcted with imprisonment for a prison term. 3. Substantive term of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner is reduced to imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court retaining the compensation awarded with the default term and also the costs as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. Deposit, if any, made by the petitioner pursuant to orders Crl.R.P.No.1718/2011 3 passed by this Court or any other forum shall be given credit to in the amount fixed towards payment of compensation. The learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance execution of the sentence against the petitioner/accused for a period of one month from today, to enable him to pay the amount as balance on the compensation fixed and also the costs. 4. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur on 22.09.2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment of one day, till the rising of the court and to report payment of the compensation whatever is due as balance. In default of his appearance and non-payment of the compensation and cost, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence in accordance with law. With the above direction, the revision is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.No.1718/2011 4