IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1480 of 2003() ------------------------------------------ CRA.607/2001 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR CC.196/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------------------------ K.KRISHNADAS, AGED 45, BUSINESS, A.I.R. QUARTERS, C-II, B&C TYPE, KARAPARAMBIL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE OF KERALA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS CHERIYAN, S/O. THOMAS, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, PANAMCHERY VILLAGE, PATTIKKAD DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.MA. NOI.6465/2003 IN CRRP. 1480/2003 DISMISSED 07/10/2010 SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1480 of 2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010. O R D E R The challenge in this revision petition is against the judgment dated 26.11.2001 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur and the judgment dated 24.3.2003 of the Court of Sessions, Thrissur, in Crl.A.No.607/01. The revision petitioner herein stand convicted u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and as per the judgment of the trial court, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and the default sentence is fixed as simple imprisonment for 3 months. Though an appeal was filed at the instance of the revision petitioner, while confirming the conviction the appellate court reduced the imprisonment to 15 days simple imprisonment and also directed the revision petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant, with default sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment. 2. The learned counsel submitted that, the compensation 2 Crl. R.P.No.1480 of 2003 amount has already been paid to the complainant and to that effect the revision petitioner has received a receipt from the complainant. Now the submission of the learned counsel is that, the sentence imposed is unreasonable and exorbitant and the same may be set aside. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that, especially in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Damodar S.Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (JT 2010(4) SC 457), wherein the apex court has held that, in the case of dishonour of cheques, 'the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects', the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced into one day simple imprisonment, especially when the appellate court has directed the revision petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant and the revision petitioner has already complied with that direction. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable 3 Crl. R.P.No.1480 of 2003 Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, in modification of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court and modified by the appellate court, the same is reduced to one day simple imprisonment ie., imprisonment till the rising of the court and the direction to pay compensation of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant as ordered by the appellate court is maintained. As the counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, the amount has already paid to the complainant, I am not ordering any default sentence but it is made clear that the default sentence fixed by the appellate court will be attracted, if the revision petitioner fails to convince the trial court regarding the payment of the compensation amount. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 8.11.2010 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to appraise the trial court regarding the payment of the compensation amount and if the trial court is not convinced regarding the payment of compensation, it is for that court to take steps to realise the compensation amount. 4 Crl. R.P.No.1480 of 2003 With the above observation, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/