IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 289 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.192/2008 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), KALPETTA ST.2538/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, MANANTHAVADY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- C.H.RIYAS, S/O. C.H.ALI, CHALIYADAN HOUSE, ELLUMANNAM P.O., MANANTHAVADY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------ 1. SREE GOKULAM CHITS AND FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD., MANANTHAVADY BRANCH, WAYANAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.289 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 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 sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and exorbitant and therefore a lenient view may be taken 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 made by the learned counsel requires positive consideration. 3. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 10.08.2005 for an amount of Rs.4,52,597/-. Though the trial court as well as the appellate court is found that the cheque amount is due to the complainant and so far no Crl.R.P.NO.289 OF 2011 2 amount is seen paid to the complainant. 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 the punitive aspect. According to me, while granting some time to pay the compensation amount, the interest of the complainant is 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 N.I. Act as recorded by the courts below. While confirming the sentence of imprisonment as modified and fixed by the appellate court, the revision petitioner is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,30,000/- within three months from today, in default he is directed to simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 22.06.2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court as directed above, the trial court is free to Crl.R.P.NO.289 OF 2011 3 take coercive steps against the revision petitioner to secure his presence and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the compensation amount. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 22nd June, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm