IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1987 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.127/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE ST.1705/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ABDUL KAREEM @ BAVA, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, MELAKATH HOUSE, NALLALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. SASIDHARAN K., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.GOPALANKUTTY NAIR, GOKULAM, NALLALAM, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 631. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMG S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1987 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently, by the two inferior courts. The learned Magistrate, on his conviction, has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month with a direction to pay compensation of `.70,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for three months more. Affirming the conviction and sentence, the learned Sessions Judge turned down his appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. Notice was given to the 1st respondent/ complainant. After accepting notice he has elected to remain absent. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction and sentence, but, only as against the sentence imposed to seek modification of the substantive term of imprisonment, with a request to be made for some more time for payment of the compensation. Crl.R.P No.1987 OF 2011 - 2 - 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge, I find, conviction of the accused is founded on unimpeachable legal evidence. No dilation over the conviction is called for in the revision as there is no challenge thereto. 4. So far as the sentence imposed, by which the accused has been directed to undergo incarceration in prison for a period of one month apart from paying compensation fixed, I find, no exceptional circumstances justifying such a harsh punishment directing his imprisonment for a term. Though the penal provision has been incorporated in the statute to give sanctity to commercial transaction by the use of cheques, still, having regard to the fact that the dishonour of cheque may arise for reasons beyond the contemplation of the drawer at the time of issuing and handing over such instrument, in the absence of exceptional circumstances justifying a prison term, such harsh punishment is not called for. As indicated earlier, no such exceptional circumstance warranting such a severe punishment as against the revision petitioner/accused has been made out in the case. So much so, the sentence imposed against him warrants modification, reducing it to imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court retaining the compensation with the default term, that too reduced to one Crl.R.P No.1987 OF 2011 - 3 - month. 5. Affirming the conviction of the accused, sentence imposed against him is reduced and modified to imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court with a direction to pay compensation of `.70,000/- with default term of imprisonment for a day. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Magistrate on 07-11-2011 to serve out the substantive term of imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the compensation. Till the date fixed as above for his appearance, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of the compensation, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE