IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 755 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.842/2009 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.8/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- C.SASIDHARAN,AGED 56 YEARS,S/O.CHOTHY, ATTENDER,UNITED BANK OF INDIA,NEAR GANDHARI AMMAN COIL STREET,M.G.ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.G.VIPIN SRI.KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- 1. G.SREEKANTAN NAIR,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,TC 22/122, BHARGAVI NIVAS, VATTAVILA LANE,PUTHENKOTTA, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.755 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th 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 13.11.2007, that too, for an amount of Rs.80,000/-. Though the courts below have concurrently found that the said amount is due to the complainant, so far no amount is seen paid to the complainant. Thus, as per the record and findings of the courts below, which Crl.R.P.NO.755 OF 2011 2 upheld by this Court, the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 3 years. The trial court imposed a sentence of one months simple imprisonment which was modified by the appellate court. 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. Accordingly, while granting some time to pay the fine amount the interest of complainant is also to be protected. Therefore, the fine amount can be enhanced slightly considering the fact that the cheque amount is due for the last three years. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accordingly, while confirming the sentence of imprisonment as modified and fixed by the appellate court and also while confirming the sentence to pay fine, the fine amount is enhanced to the tune of Rs.92,000/- and the petitioner is directed to pay the amount within three months from today in default he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to Crl.R.P.NO.755 OF 2011 3 appear before the trial court on 15.06.2011 to receive the sentence of imprisonment and fine as ordered by this court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the courts below and depositing the fine amount, 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.90,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C and the remaining of Rs.2,000/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 15th June, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm