IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 880 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.561/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURTS (ADHOC), MAVELIKKARA ST.83/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- A.MADHU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN ACHARY, THARAYIL THEKKATHIL, PALLIKKAL NADUVELIL, KATTANAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ----------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.BHARATHI, KODUVALIL KIZHAKKATHIL, BHARANICKAVU VADAKKU, BHARANIKAVU-690541. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.880 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th 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 07.07.2008, that too, for an amount of Rs.75,000/-. In the light of the findings of the courts below which upheld by this Court, the amount is due to the complainant, but the same is with the revision petitioner for the last two years. The apex court, in its recent decision in Crl.R.P.NO.880 OF 2011 2 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. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires re-consideration. It is equally important to note that while granting some time to compensate the complainant the interest of complainant has also to be protected. 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 ordered by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is modified and reduced into one day simple imprisonment i.e, till the rising of the court. In addition to that, the direction to pay compensation is set aside and the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.82,500/-, which he shall pay 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 Crl.R.P.NO.880 OF 2011 3 appear before the trial court on 27.06.2011 to receive the modified sentence of imprisonment and to pay the fine as ordered by this court. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in complying with any of the above condition, the trial court is free to take steps to execute the sentence and for realisation of fine amount. On realisation of the fine amount a sum of Rs.80,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C and the remaining of Rs.2,500/- shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 27th June, 2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm