IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 588 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- CRA.NO.601/2009 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS ADHOC COURT NO.III, PALAKKAD S.T.NO.1142/07 OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------- K.GOPI MOHAN, KOLLAYIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.4, HARMONY STREET, P.O.PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679 303. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.T.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.ALAVI HAJI, KIZHAKKEPATTUTHODI VEEDU, P.O.VILATHUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679 304. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN-682 031 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.588 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd 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 15.06.2007, that too, for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. 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.588 OF 2011 2 upheld by this Court, the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 3 years. The trial court imposed a sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment which was confirmed by the appellate court. 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. Therefore, according to me, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the courts below requires modification and when granting some time to pay the fine amount the interest of complainant is also to be protected. Therefore, the fine amount can be enhanced slightly considering the fact that the amount is due for the last 3 years. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of fine imposed by the appellate court is also confirmed and the petitioner is granted 45 days time to pay the fine amount fixed by the appellate court. It is made clear that the default sentence fixed appellate court will be attracted only in case of failure on the part of the revision petitioner in paying the fine amount within 45 days from today. Accordingly, the revision Crl.R.P.NO.588 OF 2011 3 petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount on or before 18.04.2011. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with the above condition, the trial court is free to take steps to execute the sentence and for realisation of fine amount. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 18.04.2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm