IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 813 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.83/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, N.PARAVUR ST.142/2006 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- BEERA HUSSEN, S/O.ALI, AGED 59 YEARS, VADAKKATHAPARAMBU HOUSE, H.NO.61/2840, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT& STATE -------------------------------------------- 1. P.M.MATHEWS, S/O.MATHEW, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM- 682 031. R2 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 813 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 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 some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the fine amount. I am of the view that the said submission requires consideration. 3. In this juncture it is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 15.12.2005, that too, for an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- . The trial court as well as the appellate court Crl.R.P NO.813 of 2011 :-2-: found that the cheque was issued towards the discharge of the liability due to the complainant, but so far, no amount is seen paid to the complainant in spite of the fact that the appellate court has disposed of the appeal by judgment dated 24.11.2010. Now the petitioner seeks further time to pay the fine amount. It is also relevant to note that though the amount involved is Rs.2,30,000/-, neither the trial court nor the appellate court has imposed any substantive sentence of imprisonment, but the sentence is confined to fine only. 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. Therefore according to me while granting some time to pay the fine amount, the interest of the complainant is also to be Crl.R.P NO.813 of 2011 :-3-: protected, especially when there is no sentence of imprisonment. 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, while confirming the sentence of fine ordered by the trial court as well as the appellate appellate court, the fine amount is enhanced. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,87,500/- within three months from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Accordingly the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the enhanced fine amount on or before 24th June, 2011. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the Crl.R.P NO.813 of 2011 :-4-: remaining amount of Rs.2500/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in making the deposit of fine amount on or before the above date, 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 24th June, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kvm/-/