IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 273 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRA.272/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC I), KASARAGOD CC.785/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDURG. .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- T.NARAYANAN, S/O.T.KANNAN, RESIDING AT PALLATHUNGAL, KUTTIKOL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.PRASAD, SRI.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND THE STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.PADMANABHAN, S/O.K.VELLAN MANI NIVAS, NEAR SIVA TEMPLE, PILICODE P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 353. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. R.P. No.273 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011. O R D E R The accused in a prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short ‘the N.I Act’) approached this Court by preferring the above revision petition challenging his conviction and sentence, imposed as per judgments of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents. 3. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction recorded by the courts below, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court below is exorbitant and unreasonable and further submitted that some breathing time may be granted to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount and permit him to pay the same to the complainant directly. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that, the said submission requires serious consideration. But at the same time, the interest of the complainant has also to be protected, especially in the light of the decision reported in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal .H. (JT 2010 (4) SC 457), wherein it is held that, in case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. The cheque in question is dated 15.10.2003 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. Considering the above settled legal position and the facts which I referred to above, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner requires modification and while granting time to the revision petitioner to pay the compensation. The compensation amount can be enhanced slightly, considering the fact that, the amount covered by the cheque in question is due to the complainant for the last 7 years. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of N.I Act as recorded by the court below and accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court below is modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment that till the rising of the court. Whereas, the revision petitioner is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees One lakh thirty thousand only) to the complainant within three months from today and in default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 04.04.011. It is made clear that, the revision petitioner is free to pay the enhanced compensation either directly to the complainant or by way of remitting the same in the trial court, which ever subject to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the court below and 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 and for realisation of the fine amount. The coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall deferred till 04.04.2011. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (V.K.MOHANAN), Judge ss/- //True Copy// P.A to Judge