IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 587 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- CRA.62/2010 of V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM ST.288/2006 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOLENCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- PRABHEESH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.JOHNNY, MANNATHUKARAN HOUSE, PANDRIMALA KARA MUVATTUPUZHA P.O BY ADVS. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. SRI.NOEL JOSEPH SRI.M.B.SANDEEP SRI.K.V.REJANISH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NO.1 & STATE COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. R.SIVAKURUPU, S/O.RAMAKURUPPU, VADAKKEMADAM, VEETTOOR, NELLADU P.O.,MAZHUVANNOOR,PIN-686 669 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM PIN-682 031 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V. TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 587 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th 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 of imprisonment is exorbitant and unreasonable and therefore, the same may be set aside. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount. In the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive Crl.R.P.No.587 of 2011 :-2-: consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 25.8.2005 that too for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and as per the findings of the courts below, the said amount is due to the complainant and the same is pending for the last five years. 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 the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner can be modified and while granting some time to pay the compensation, the compensation amount can be enhanced slightly considering the fact that the cheque in question pertains to the year 2005. 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 Crl.R.P.No.587 of 2011 :-3-: by the courts below. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment, ordered by the trial court, 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 and in modification to pay the amount of compensation fixed by the trial court, confirmed by the appellate court, the complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. within forty five days from today and the default sentence fixed by the court below is also confirmed. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 9th April,2011 to receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount. It is made clear that the revision petitioner is free to pay the above enhanced 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 Crl.R.P.No.587 of 2011 :-4-: to receive the sentence and to pay 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. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 9th April,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/ Crl.R.P.No.587 of 2011 :-5-: