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. 665 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.371/2009 of ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE(ADHOC-III), N.PARAVUR ST.4428/2005 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRAST CLASS - II, N.PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------- SHIBU.M.D,S/O.DAMODARAN,MULLAPARAMBIL HOUSE,MANJUMMAL.P.O,ELOOR VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.BAIJU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. T.P.RAPHEL,S/O.PAILY,THEVALAPARAMBIL HOUSE,MANJUMMAL.P.O,ELOOR VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK, PIN-683501. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 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.665 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 23.06.2005, that too, for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Inspite of the judgment of the courts below so far no amount is seen paid to the complainant and therefore, according to me, while granting some more time to pay fine, the interest of the complainant is also to be protected. Crl.R.P.NO.665 OF 2011 2 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 also requires modification. 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 is modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment i.e., till the rising of the court. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence to pay fine, the fine amount enhanced to the tune of Rs.1,10,000/- which the petitioner shall be deposited within one month 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 29.04.2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to deposit the fine amount 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 Crl.R.P.NO.665 OF 2011 3 for realisation of fine amount. On realisation of the fine amount a sum of Rs. 1,07,500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C and the remaining of Rs.2,500/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 29th April, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm