IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2291 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CRA.219/2009 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT(AD HOC-II), PATHANAMTHITTA C.C.NO.222/2007 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAJAN JACOB, PUTHETHU ELAMPURAYIDATHIL, KURIYANNOOR.P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE PATHANAMTHITTA, THROUGH SRI.M.SASIKUMAR, SUPERINTENDENT, RECOVERY CELL, THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ln S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2291 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, NI Act), concurrently, by the two inferior courts. The learned Magistrate, on his conviction, has sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months and to pay fine of `.1,03,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for three months more. Fine amount, if realised, was directed to be paid as compensation with the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge, turning down the appeal of the accused, affirmed the conviction and sentence without any modification. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. Notice given, the 1st respondent/ complainant has entered appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would submit that the entire amount due to the complainant, covered by the dishonoured cheque, had been paid and the account with the bank has been settled. The only plea made is that the substantive term of imprisonment imposed against the accused in view of the payment of the sum covered by the cheque to the bank may be modified even if Crl.R.P No.2291/2011 - 2 - the conviction is found not to be interfered with, by subsequent payment. Accused has discharged the debt covered by the cheque is conceded to by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. True, once the offence is proved in relation to a cheque, which was dishonoured on its presentation due to insufficiency of funds in the account maintained by the drawer in a bank, satisfying the essential ingredients constituting such offence, and a conviction is entered against such offender, subsequent payment discharging the debt or liability under the instrument, is not a ground to relieve him from the punishment. However, taking note that the offence covered by Section 138 of the NI Act is quasi civil in nature and the approach of the court should be more of compensating the payee than of punitive, for punishing the offender, the drawer of the cheque, I find, taking note of the circumstances presented in the case that the accused has discharged his debt or liability to the bank, retaining the conviction, the sentence imposed against him can be modified as indicated hereunder. 3. Affirming the conviction, the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and to pay fine of `.5,000/- with default term of imprisonment for 15 days. He shall remit the fine as ordered above within a period of one month Crl.R.P No.2291/2011 - 3 - from today. He shall report before the Magistrate on 31-10-2011 to serve out the imprisonment for a day, till the rising of the court, and to report payment of the fine. Till such time, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence. In default of his appearance and nonpayment of fine, the learned Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge