IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 924 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.812/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CC.1406/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VALSAMMA THOMAS, CHOORAKKATTUMANNIL HOUSE, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. JAMES K., NADUVILEKKARA, NADUVILEKKARA HOUSE, ARPOOKARA WEST P.O., KOTTAYAM-686001. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE FOR R1 SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.924 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011. ORDER The challenge in this Crl.R.P is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, the learned counsel submitted that a lenient view may be taken with respect to the sentence and the petitioner may be granted sufficient time to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission of the learned counsel requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 29.07.2003, that too, for an amount of Rs.18,000/-. Though the courts below have concurrently found that the cheque in question issued towards the discharge of the liability and though the appellate court has disposed of the appeal on 02.08.2007, so far no amount is seen paid to the complainant and the petitioner seeks further time. The apex court, in its recent decision in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Crl.R.P.NO.924 OF 2011 2 Sayed Babalal H (J.T.2010 (4) SC 457), has held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Therefore, according to me, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the courts below requires re-consideration and while granting some more time, the interest of the complainant is also to be protected especially in the light of the above decision. In the result, this 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 sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and the appellate court is modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment i.e, till the rising of the court. The direction to pay compensation is set aside and the revision petitioner is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.24,300/- within one month from today. It is made clear that the default sentence fixed by the courts below will be attracted only in case of default in paying the above amount of fine within one month from today. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 05.05.2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the amount of fine as ordered by this Crl.R.P.NO.924 OF 2011 3 Court on the date of his appearance. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with any of the above condition, the trial court is free to take steps to execute the sentence and for realisation of fine amount. On realisation of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 23,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C and the remaining of Rs.1,300/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 5th May, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm