IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3331 of 2010 () ------------------------------ (CRA.305/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KASARAGOD CC.104/2006 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, (ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF), KASARAGOD. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- DR. SHAMUSUDDEEN, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.LATE MOHAMMED, GREEN HOUSE, ALAMPADY, KASARAGOD. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINTANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.M.SHAFI, S/O.MOHAMMED, RISWAR COTTAGE, KATTAKAL, KALANAD PO, KASARAGOD TALUK 671316. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.3331 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2010. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is the revision petitioner, as he is aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed against him by the courts below. 2. The counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has no contention on merit but his grievance is with respect to the sentence of imprisonment imposed against him and the counsel further submitted that the revision petitioner require some time to pay the compensation amount. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I find no reason to deny the above request and while granting some time to pay the compensation, the amount can be enhanced slightly considering the fact that the cheque in question is dated 25.8.2005 that too for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 5 years, 2 Crl. R.P.No.3331 of 2010 though the same belong to the complainant. The apex court in a recent 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. Therefore, according to me, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court below requires some modification and at the very same time, the amount can be enhanced slightly and some breathing time can be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the appellate court is modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment ie., till the rising of the court and the revision petitioner is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(3) of Cr.P.C., within 45 3 Crl. R.P.No.3331 of 2010 days from today and in case of default in paying the compensation amount within the stipulated time, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 27.12.2010, to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount as fixed by this court. In case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in paying the compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence awarded against the revision petitioner. The execution of warrant if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 27.12.2010. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/