IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3925 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ CRA.143/2007 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, ALAPPUZHA CC.44/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(MOBILE),ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------- K.K.VIJAYAN, S/O. KUMARAN, MAVAVEETTIL HOUSE, KUNTHIRIKKAL P.O., THALAVADI, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. E.O.NADARAJAN, EDAVUMOOTTIL VEEDU, (PULAPARATHADATHIL), CHENGANNUR P.O., MALLAPPALLY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 3925 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011 O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act') approached this Court by preferring the above revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence, imposed as per judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed to the revision petitioner is highly arbitrary and exorbitant. Though notice was ordered in the revision petition and the same was received by the respondents, nobody has turned up to defend the revision petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the Crl.R.P.3925 of 2009 :-2-:- revision petitioner requires reconsideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 10.12.2004 that too for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] wherein it was held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects, I am of the view that while granting some time to pay the compensation, the compensation amount can be enhanced. According to me, the petitioner can be granted one month time to pay the compensation amount, but the compensation amount can be enhanced to Rs.2,15,000/-. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as recorded by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court. Crl.R.P.3925 of 2009 :-3-:- Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment i.e., till the rising of the court. In addition to that, the revision petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,15,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifteen Thousand only) to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. within one month from today and in default, the revision petitioner 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 23rd March,2011 to receive the modified sentence and to pay the compensation amount fixed by this Court. The revision petitioner is free to pay the compensation amount either directly to the complainant or by remitting the same in the trial court whichever subject to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner to receive the sentence and to pay the Crl.R.P.3925 of 2009 :-4-:- compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 23rd March,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.P.3925 of 2009 :-5-:- As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that some breathing time may be granted to revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. The cheque in question is dated 2.4.2004 that too for an amount of Rs.43,000/-. The trial court though sentenced the revision petitioner to undergo six months simple imprisonment, the appellate court reduced the same to one day simple imprisonment. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and in the light of the decision reported ........., I am of the view that while granting some time, the compensation amount can be enhanced. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner Crl.R.P.3925 of 2009 :-6-:- under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment as modified and fixed by the appellate court, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of RS.60,500/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of the CrP.C. within three months from today and in default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to