IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1096 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------------- [CRL.A.NO.405/2009 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK-II) ALAPPUZHA, CC.NO.92/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RAMANKARI] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- G.MURALI, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.GOPI, NALPATHILCHIRA VEEDU, NEDUMUDY P.O., THOTTUVATHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THOMAS P.J., AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PUTHENTHARA VEEDU, NEDUMUDI P.O., THEKKEMURI, ALAPPUZHA – 688 508. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA.C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1096 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 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 and sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that 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 requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 20.8.2006, that too, for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. As per the findings of the courts below which approved by this Court, the said amount is due to the complainant and the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last four years. The apex court, in its recent decision in Damodar S.Prabhu v. 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 Crl.R.P.No.1096 of 2011 2 the punitive aspect. In the light of the above facts and the settled legal position, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires re-consideration and while granting some time to the accused to compensate the complainant , the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act as recorded by the trial court as well as the appellate court. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner is modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment i.e., till the rising of the court. Since the substantial sentence is reduced substantially, the direction to pay compensation is set aside and the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.36,000/- within 2 months from today and and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 26.07.2011 to receive the modified sentence and to pay the fine amount as fixed by this Court. If there is any failure on the part Crl.R.P.No.1096 of 2011 3 of the revision petitioner in appearing before the courts below and depositing the fine amount on the date fixed above, 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.35,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and the remaining of Rs.1,000/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 26th July, 2011. The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/