IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 750 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.208/2007 of SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA STC.1708/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, SULTHANBATHERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- P.K.RAJAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMARAKUNI P.O., PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. M/S.DHANASHILPI CHITS PVT.LTD., SULTHAN BATHERY P.O., WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VENUNATHAN THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MADHAVAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, CHEMANKUNNEL (H), KUPPADY P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-673 575. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. ADV. SRI.LALJI P.THOMAS FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN,J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.750 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th 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 25.11.2005 that too for an amount of Rs.71,722/-. Though the courts below has concurrently found that the said amount is due to the complainant, so far no amount is seen paid to the complainant. Now petitioner again seeks time. The Apex court, in its recent decision in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (J.T.2010 Crl.R.P.NO.750 OF 2011 2 (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. In the light of the above submission, I am of the view that the sentence ordered against the revision petitioner can be modified. Accordingly, 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 five years. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. But, the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner is modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment i.e., till the rising of the court. Further, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.99,652/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C within 3 months from today, in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 04.07.2011 to receive the modified sentence and to deposit the Crl.R.P.NO.750 OF 2011 3 enhanced compensation amount. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount on the date of his appearance, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure his presence and to execute the sentence and for realization of compensation amount. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 4th July, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm