IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1489 of 2011 ------------------------------------ CRA.358/2008 of THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK (ADHOC-II), KOZHIKODE ST.7/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,KOYILANDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- K.T.PADMANABHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. VELANDI, SREEPADMAM,THENNACHERIPOYIL, P.O.MELOOR, MELOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL) SRI.JIMMY GEORGE SRI.A.S.BENOY RESPONDENTS(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. SAJEEVAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. CHTHUKUTTY, KOYILANDY AMSOM, KIZHOOR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH FOR R1 SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR FOR R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1489 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011 O R D E R The challenge in this Crl.R.P. is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act'). 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 against the revision petitioner is exorbitant and unreasonable and the same may be set aside. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the fine amount as ordered by the trial court, confirmed by the appellate court. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered positively and while granting time, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. Crl.R.PNO. 1489 of 2011 :-2-: 4. In the present case, the cheque in question is dated 15.10.2006, that too for an amount of `.8,00,000/-. As per the findings of the courts below which are approved by this Court, the said amount is originally belonged to the complainant and the same is with the revision petitioner for the last four years. But, it is also relevant to note that the Honourable Apex Court in the 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. Considering the above facts and the above settled legal position, I am of the view that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner requires modification and at the very same time, the interest of the complainant also has to be protected. 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 courts below. Accordingly, the Crl.R.PNO. 1489 of 2011 :-3-: sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is further modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment, i.e., till the rising of the court. While confirming the sentence to pay fine as ordered by the trial court and modified by the appellate court, the fine amount is enhanced and accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of `.9,50,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) within three months from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 23rd September,2011 to receive the modified sentence ordered by this Court and to deposit the above enhanced fine amount. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court on the above date to receive the modified sentence fixed by this Court and to deposit the fine amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and to Crl.R.PNO. 1489 of 2011 :-4-: realise the fine. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of `.9,40,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 23rd September,2011. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/