IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 451 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------------ [CRL.A.NO.217/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,-I, MAVELIKKARA, CC.NO.193/2008 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KAYAMKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- G.VENU, PATTETTUPARAMBIL VEEDU, KARUMADI P.O, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRTICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR, SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUNDERASAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, MUNDAKATHIL VADAKKATHIL, KEERIKKAD THEKKU, KAYAMAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 502. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.451 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th 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 30.09.2007, that too, for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court, which approved by this Court, the said amount is due to the complainant for the last 3 years. It is relevant to note that though the trial court imposed Crl.R.P.NO.451 OF 2011 2 a sentence of three months simple imprisonment and directed to pay compensation, the appellate court has reduced substantial sentence into one day simple imprisonment. Though the amount is due to the complaint, so far nothing paid to the complainant and the petitioner now seeks time to pay the compensation. 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. Having regard to the above facts and the legal position, I am of the view that while granting some time to pay the compensation and to receive the sentence, the compensation amount can be enhanced, considering the facts 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 as recorded by the courts below. While confirming the sentence of imprisonment as modified by the appellate court the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C within three months from today and in case of default, the Crl.R.P.NO.451 OF 2011 3 revision petitioner 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 06.06.2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount as ordered by this court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with the above condition, the trial court is free to take steps to execute the sentence and for realisation of compensation amount. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 6th June, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm