IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 538 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------------ [CRL.A.NO.726/2003 OF THE SESSIONS COURT , THALASSERY, CC.NO.34/2001 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------------------- K.V.RAJENDRAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN, AGED 30 YEARS, KALIKOTTU VALAPPIL, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA, KANNUR. BY ADVS. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA, SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA). RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.NARAYANAN, S/O. KOTTAN, KARIKKAN HOUSE, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA, KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA.C.NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.538 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 ORDER The accused in a prosecution for the offence Under Section 138 of the NI Act is the revision petitioner. The challenge is against his conviction and sentence for the said offence. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no contention on merit, but his grievance is with respect to the sentence. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that since the petitioner belonged to a very poor family, breathing time may be granted to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 20.3.2000 and that too for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. As per the findings of the courts below which approved by this Court, the said amount is due to the complainant and the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 11 years. 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, Crl.R.P.No.538 of 2011 2 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 NI Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and modified by the appellate court is 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.46,500/- 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 26.8.2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to deposit the fine as ordered by this Court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.538 of 2011 3 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.45,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.and the remaining amount of Rs.1,500/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 26th August, 2011. The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/