IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 29TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 510 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.152/2010 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD STC.2562/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- RAJANISREE, W/O.SIVADASAN, SREEKAILASVEETTIL, AYYAPPANKAVU GRAMAM, KOTTAYI P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND NON-PARTY ---------------------------------------- 1. C.GOPINATH, S/O.LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, GOPIKRISHNAVEETTIL, MANJERIKKAVU, KONGAD P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA.C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.510 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 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 20-08-2007, that too, for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. Thus as per the record and findings of the courts below, which upheld by this Court, the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 4 years. The trial court imposed a sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment Crl.R.P.NO.510 OF 2011 2 which was considered and modified by the appellate court and accordingly reduced into till the raising of the court. 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. In the light of the facts indicated above and the settled legal position, I am of the view that while confirming the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner, some time can be given to the petitioner to pay the compensation amount. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction, sentence order to pay compensation and default sentence as ordered by the appellate court. But the petitioner is granted 45 days to pay the compensation amount. It is made clear that the default sentence fixed by the courts below will attract only in case of default on the part of the petitioner in paying the compensation within 45 days from today. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 05-04-2011 to receive the modified sentence fixed by the appellate court and to pay the compensation amount. If there is any default on the part of the petitioner in Crl.R.P.NO.510 OF 2011 3 appearing before the trial court on the above date and in paying the compensation amount on his appearance, 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 amount. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 05-04-2011. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm