IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 375 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.259/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD ST.2763/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.IBRAHIM, KOTTAPARAMBIL, KOLATHUR POST, MALAPPURAM, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SELVAN @ SELVARAJ, PROPRIETOR, MAHALAKSHMI FINANCE, T.B.ROAD, KOPPAM VILLAGE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C.RAJ, S/O.CHANDRAN, MUKRAMKADU HOUSE, KOTTEKKAD, PALAKKAD- 678002. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.375 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th 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, 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 of the learned counsel requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 25.08.2006, that too, for an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. Though the courts below have concurrently found that the cheque in question issued towards the discharge of the liability and though the appellate court has disposed of the appeal on 13.10.2010, so far no amount is seen Crl.R.P.NO.375 OF 2011 2 paid to the complainant and the petitioner seeks further time. 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. Therefore, according to me, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the courts below requires re-consideration and while granting some more time, the interest of the complainant is also to be protected especially in the light of the above decision. 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. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and reduced by the appellate court is again 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 a fine of Rs.2,16,000/- 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 Crl.R.P.NO.375 OF 2011 3 29.06.2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and fine as ordered by this court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with any of the above condition, 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. 2,10,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C and the remaining of Rs.6,000/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 29th June, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm