IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 692 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.626/2006 of on the file the court of The Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda in ST.563/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SUNNY, S/O. ANTHONY, CHIRIANKANDATHIL HOUSE, THURAVANKADU DESOM, PUNALUR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O. CHACKO, POZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA DESOM,MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.692 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th 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 and sentence, 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 made by the learned counsel requires positive consideration. 3. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 22.10.2002 and so far no amount is seen paid to the complainant. 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.692 OF 2011 2 compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Therefore, considering the above facts and legal position, according to me the sentence imposed against the petitioner requires modification and while granting some time to pay the compensation, the amount can be enhanced slightly. 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. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment that till the rising of the court. In addition to that, while confirming the direction to pay compensation and the default sentence imposed by the courts below, the revision petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C within one month from today. The default sentence fixed by the appellate court will be attracted only in case default from the part of the revision petitioner to pay the above amount within one month from today. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 08.04.2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the compensation amount. If there is any failure on the part of the Crl.R.P.NO.692 OF 2011 3 revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court as directed above, the trial court is free to take coercive steps against the revision petitioner to secure his presence and to execute the sentence and for realisation of the compensation amount. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 08th April, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm