IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1332 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.183/2008 of THE ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, (AD HOC) FAST TRACK COURT-III, PATHANAMTHITTA. ST.1465/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ---------------------------- V.N.JANARDANAN,VILAYIL HOUSE VAKAYAR PO, MANGARAM MURI,KONNI VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY THALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.MURUGAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. P.VIJAYAN, PUTHUKULATHU VEEDU, KOODAL PO, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. R2 BY P.P. SMT. REKHA C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1332 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') is the revision petitioner and the challenge in this Revision Petition is against the conviction and sentence, imposed as per judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and exorbitant and the petitioner may be granted some 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 requires positive consideration. 3. In this case, it is relevant to note that the Crl.R.P NO.1332 of 2011 :-2-: cheque in question is dated 30.7.2006, that too for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. In the light of the findings of the courts below which approved by this Court, the said amount which belongs to the complainant is with the revision petitioner for the last four years. The Honourable Apex Court in the 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. In the light of the facts indicated above and the legal position, I am of the view that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner requires interference and the petitioner can be granted some time to compensate the complainant but the interest of the complaint is also to be protected. In the result, the conviction of the revision revision petitioner under section 138 of the N.I.Act Crl.R.P NO.1332 of 2011 :-3-: recorded by the appellate court as well as the trial court is confirmed and accordingly while confirming the conviction and the sentence to pay fine, the substantial sentence is reduced into one day simple imprisonment and the fine amount is enhanced. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.three lakhs only), within three months from today , and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months. Thus the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 31st August, 2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the modified fine amount on the date of appearance. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,95,000/- (Rs.Two lakhs ninety five thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of Rs.5000/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. In case of any Crl.R.P NO.1332 of 2011 :-4-: failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial Court as directed above, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 31st August, 2011. This Crl.R.P is disposed accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-