IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1468 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRA.315/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD STC.1145/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED. :- ------------------------------------------------------------------- ABBAS MUHAMMED KUNHI (46 YEARS), S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, PAKKERA HOUSE, P.O.UDUMA, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH SRI.A.V.VAMANA KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE. :- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.ABDUL RAHMAN (36 YEARS), S/O. P.ASSAINAR, HUSSAIN MANZIL, THEKKEKARA, P.O.UDUMA, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKLULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010 ALONG WITH CRL.R.P. NO.1469 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt V.K.MOHANAN, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 23rd day of June 2010 O R D E R As the parties in these two revision petitions are one and same and the revision petitions are directed against the findings of the same court and the issue raised is common, these revision petitions are heard together. Crl.R.P.No.1468 of 2010 In this case, the cheque in question dated 5.6.2006 and the amount involved is Rs.90,000/-. During the trial of the case, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the defence Dws.1 and 2 were examined and Ext.D1 was marked. This revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 28.8.2008 in S.T.C.No.1145/2006 of the J.F.C.M. Court II, Hosdurg and Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010 : 2 : the judgment dated 4.2.2010 in Crl.A.No.315/2008 of the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. Crl.R.P.No.1469 of 2010 This revision petition is preferred against the judgment dated 28.8.2008 in S.T.C.No.1198/2006 of the J.F.C.M. Court II, Hosdurg and also against the judgment dated 4.2.2010 in Crl.A.No.316/2008 of the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. In the present case also the cheque in question marked as Ext.P1 dated 5.6.2006 for an amount of Rs.90,000/-. In this case also from the side of the complainant PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the accused Dws.1 and 2 were examined and Ext.D1 was marked. 2. The main challenge in these revision petitions is against the sentence and the order of compensation imposed against the revision petitioner by the courts below. Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010 : 3 : 3. I have heard Mr.C.K.Sreejith, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the judgments of the courts below. 4. The learned counsel submitted that some time may be granted to the revision petitioner to make the payment of compensation. 5. According to me, the above submission can be considered favourably but subject to other facts and circumstances involved in the case. 6. In both the cases the cheques were issued in the year 2006 and each cheque was for an amount of Rs.90,000/-. In the light of the findings of the courts below as per the records, it has to be presumed that a total sum of Rs.1,80,000/- is with the revision petitioner for the last 4 years. It is also pertinent to note that the trial court imposed a sentence of 6 months, the lower appellate court has reduced the same till the rising of the court and the compensation is fixed as equivalent to the cheque amount. Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010 : 4 : The Apex Court in the decision in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [J.T. 2010 (4) SC 457] held that in the mater of dishonour of cheque the compensatory aspect of the remedy shall be given preference than the punitive aspect. Considering the above legal position and the facts involved in the present cases, I am of the view that while setting aside the sentence of imprisonment, the compensation amount awarded against the revision petitioner can be enhanced at the rate of Rs.7,500/-. Thus these revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. Crl.R.P.No.1468/2010 This revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner is set aside and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.97,500/- and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. On Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010 : 5 : realization of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.95,000/- shall be paid to the complainant under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Crl.R.P.No.1469/2010 This revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner is set aside and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.97,500/- and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. On realization of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.95,000/- shall be paid to the complainant under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. It is ordered that the default sentence in the above two cases shall run consecutively. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 23rd September, 2010 to make the deposit of fine amount. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court as directed above and making the deposit of the fine amount, the trial court is free Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010 : 6 : to take coercive steps against the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. Both these revision petitions are disposed of as above. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. Jvt