IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1447 of 2011() ------------------------------------------ CRA.NO.67/2011 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ST.NO.2258/1996 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, PONANI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O. ABDU, KUNDIPADATHU HOUSE, CHIYYANOOR, CHANGARAMKULAM.P.O KOKKUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.MOHANDAS, CHEMBRA HOUSE, PANTHAVOOR, ALANCODE.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1447 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 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 her conviction and sentence for the said offence. 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 this case, I am of the view that the said submission requires positive consideration. 3. The cheque in question is dated 20.07.1996 and that too for an amount of Rs.10,000/-. As per the findings of the courts below which approved by this Court, the said Crl.R.P.No.1447 of 2011 2 amount is due to the complainant and the same is with the revision petitioner for the last 14 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, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. In the light of the above facts and the settled legal position, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires re-consideration and while granting some time to compensate the complainant, the interest of the complainant has 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 NI Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner is modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment i.e., till the rising of the court. As the substantial sentence is reduced considerably the fine Crl.R.P.No.1447 of 2011 3 amount is enhanced to the tune of Rs.15,500/- which shall be deposited within one month from today and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with the above direction, 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.15,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.500/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 11th July, 2011. The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/