IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1580 of 2011 ----------------------------------- REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------ K.R.SASIDHARAN, ELANJIMATTAM HOUSE, KARUKACHAL P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU RESPONDENTS(S): RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.C.MATHEW, PARAPURATH HOUSE, THIRUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM-01. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1580 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd 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. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and the same may be set aside. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner requires breathing time to compensate the complainant. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be considered positively and while granting time, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected. 4. In the present case, the cheque in question is dated Crl.R.PNO. 1580 of 2011 :-2-: 12.5.2007, that too for an amount of `.75,000/-. Though the courts below have concurrently found that the cheque in question was issued towards the discharge of the liability that is due to the complainant, so far no amount is seen paid. 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, considering the above settled legal position, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires modification. But, at the same time, the interest of the complainant has also 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. 1580 of 2011 :-3-: imprisonment, i.e., till the rising of the court. As the sentence is reduced substantially, the direction to pay compensation is set aside and the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine and accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of `.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) 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 23rd September,2011 to receive the modified sentence ordered by this Court and to deposit the above 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 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 Crl.R.PNO. 1580 of 2011 :-4-: 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 23rd September,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/