IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3200 of 2010 (D) ------------------------------ (CRA.247/2008 of ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II) PATHANAMTHITTA (CC.758/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED --------------------------------------------------------------- JAYACHANDRAN, KUTTIVILAYIL HOUSE, ELAMPALLIL, PAYYANALLOOR P.O., ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SATHEESH KUMAR, SARATHA MANDIRAM, KAITHACKAL, ANAYADI P.O., ADOOR TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.3200 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010. O R D E R Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the revision petitioner preferred this revision petition. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has no contention on merit but his grievance is with respect to the unreasonable and exorbitant sentence of imprisonment awarded by the court below and it is also the submission of the learned counsel that the revision petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant, for which he require some time. 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 but subject to other relevant inputs involved in the case. The cheque in question is dated 21.6.2005 that too 2 Crl. R.P.No.3200 of 2010 for an amount of Rs.60,000/- and as per the findings of the court below, which approved by this court, though the amount covered by the cheque which belonged to the complainant is with the revision petitioner for the last 5 years. The apex court in a recent 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. In the light of the above settled legal position and the facts referred above, I am of the view that, the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the revision petitioner can be modified and the revision petitioner can be granted some time to compensate the complainant. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, in suppression of the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine only and accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay 3 Crl. R.P.No.3200 of 2010 a fine of Rs.76,500/-, within 3 months from today and in default he is further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the fine amount refixed by this court on or before 9.2.2011. In case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below as directed above and in paying the compensation amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence awarded against the revision petitioner. On realisation the fine amount, a sum of Rs.71,500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be paid to the State Exchequer. The execution of warrant if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 9.2.2011. Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/