IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1494 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRA.235/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.303/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-IV, PUNALUR. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------ BHUVANACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, RAMANIVILASAM VEEDU, VADAMON P.O., ANCHAL. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------- 1. M.AHAMED, SHAJIDA MANZIL, KANJIVAYAL, PATHADY, BHARATEEPURAM P.O., YEROOR VILLAGE-691 330. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRT. REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1494 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th 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 26.03.2009 and that too for an amount of Rs.1,45,000/-. As per the findings of the courts below which approved by this Court, the said amount is due to the complainant and the same is with the revision petitioner for the last 2 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.1494 of 2011 2 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 imposed against the revision petitioner is modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment i.e., till the rising of the court. Since the substantial sentence is modified substantially, the direction to pay compensation is set aside and the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,75,000/- which shall be deposited within two months from today and in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 16.8.2011 to serve the modified sentence and to deposit the fine amount. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with the above Crl.R.P.No.1494 of 2011 3 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.1,70,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 16th August, 2011. The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/