IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 865 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.104/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, (ADHOC-I), PALAKKAD ST.2204/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- M.J.SIBI,S/O.JOSEPH,CELL TELL,461, BHARATHIYAR ROAD,PAPPANAYAKAM PALAYAM, OPP.PANEER VIDEOS,COIMBATORE-37. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. JAYAPRAKASH,S/O.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JAYAPRAKASH NILAYAM,AKG NAGAR,KADUKKAMKUNNAM POST, PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA.C.NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.865 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th 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 29.03.2006, that too, for an amount of Rs.25,000/-. Though the courts below have concurrently found that the said amount is due to the complainant, so far no amount is seen paid to the complainant. Thus, as per the record and findings of the courts below, which Crl.R.P.NO.865 OF 2011 2 upheld by this Court, the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 4 years. 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. According to me, while granting some time to pay the compensation amount, the interest of complainant is also to be protected. Therefore, the compensation amount can be enhanced slightly considering the fact that the cheque amount is due for the last four 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. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment as modified and fixed by the appellate court and also while confirming the direction to pay compensation, the compensation amount is enhanced to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and the petitioner is directed to pay the amount within three months from today in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 30.06.2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and Crl.R.P.NO.865 OF 2011 3 compensation as ordered by this court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the courts below and depositing the compensation amount, the trial court is free to take steps to execute the sentence and for realisation of compensation amount. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 30th June, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm