IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1560 of 2011 ----------------------------------- CRA.251/2008 of ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA ST.1645/2006 of JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II,PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------- P.C.JACOB, PUTHETHU ELAMPURAYIDATHIL HOUSE, KURIYANOOR PO KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANTONY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS(S): ------------------------ 1. THOMAS ABRAHAM KUNNIL VEEDU, PULLAD PO, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN 689548 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1560 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd 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. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is unreasonable. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to compensate the complainant. 3. In the present case, the cheque in question is dated 20.5.2006, that too for an amount of `.3,00,000/-. As per the findings of the courts below which are approved by this Court, the said amount is originally belonged to the complainant and the same is with the Crl.R.PNO. 1560 of 2011 :-2-: revision petitioner for the last five years. But, it is also relevant to note that 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. Considering the above facts and the above settled legal position, I am of the view that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner requires modification and at the very same time, the interest of the complainant also has 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 modified by the appellate court is further modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment, i.e., till the rising of the court. While confirming the sentence to pay fine fixed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate Crl.R.PNO. 1560 of 2011 :-3-: court, the fine amount is enhanced and accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of `.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) within three months from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 22nd September,2011 to receive the modified sentence ordered by this Court and to deposit the above enhanced 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 `.3,70,000/- 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 Crl.R.PNO. 1560 of 2011 :-4-: against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 22nd September,2011. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/