IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE ,2011 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1587 of 2011 ----------------------------------- (CRA.155/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM ST.108/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KANJIRAPPALLY) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------- ROY JOSEPH, VELLOOR HOUSE, MELORAM P.O., AZHENGADU, PERUVANTHANAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------- 1. T.J.CHERIAN, THOOMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, THEKKETHUKAVALA, CHENNAKUNNU- 686 519. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUB LIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1587 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 O R D E R The challenge in this Crl.R.P. is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act'). 2. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner is highly exorbitant and unreasonable. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner may be granted certain 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 can be considered positively. 3. But, in this juncture it is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 10.7.2007, that too for an amount of `.75,000/-. As per the findings of the courts below which are approved by this Court, though the said amount is belonging to the complainant, the same is Crl.R.PNO. 1587of 2011 :-2-: with the revision petitioner for the last four years. It is also relevant to note that the Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] has held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances as indicated above and considering the settled legal position, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration and while granting some time to the accused to compensate the complainant, the interest of the complainant also has to be protected. In the result, this Criminal 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 confirmed by the appellate court is further modified and reduced to one day simple Crl.R.PNO. 1587of 2011 :-3-: imprisonment, i.e., till the rising of the court. As the sentence is reduced substantially, I am of the view that the the direction to pay compensation can be set aside and the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of `.90,000/- within 45 (forty five) days from today and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 45 days. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 16th August,2011 to receive the modified sentence ordered by this Court and to deposit the above fine amount. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of `.25,000/- in the trial court on the basis of the order passed by the appellate court while suspending the execution of sentence. If that be so and the said amount is retained in the trial court, the petitioner needs to deposit a sum of `.65,000/- towards the total fine amount. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court on the above date to receive the modified sentence fixed by this Court Crl.R.PNO. 1587of 2011 :-4-: and to deposit the fine amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and to realise the fine. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of `.87,500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 16th August,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/