IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1422 of 2011 ------------------------------------- (CRA.252/2005 of II ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.711/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOTTARAKKARA) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------- M.PRASAD, ANOOR THEKKATHIL VEEDU, INCHAKADU MURI, MYLON VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENTS(S): ------------------------ 1. K.K.GEEVARGHESE, PROPRIETOR, J.J.TRADERS, K.K.VIHAR, VETTIKAVALA, PADINJATTINKARA MURI, MELILA VILLAGE,KOTTARAKKARA.P.O. -691 073. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1422 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th 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. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no contention on merit and his grievance is with respect to the sentence imposed against him. It is also submitted that the petitioner requires some time to compensate the complainant. 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. 4. In the present case, the cheques in question pertain to the year 2002 and the total amount is `.28,200/-. As per the findings of the courts below, the said amount is actually due to the complainant. Crl.R.PNO. 1422 of 2011 :-2-: But, so far the same is not paid. 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, considering the above settled legal position, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires some modification and while granting time to the petitioner to compensate the complainant, the interest of the complainant has also 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 sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is further modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment, i.e., till the rising of the court. As the sentence is reduced substantially, the direction to pay compensation is set aside Crl.R.PNO. 1422 of 2011 :-3-: and the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of `.39,500/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Five Hundred only), which he shall deposit within three months from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 12th September, 2011 to receive the modified sentence ordered by this Court and to deposit the above 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 realise the fine. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of `.37,000/- 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 Crl.R.PNO. 1422 of 2011 :-4-: till 12th September, 2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/