IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2862 of 2011 ------------------------------ CRA.629/2010 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-III, KOZHIKODE CC.453/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-V, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: -------------------------------- A.P.UMMER @ UMMERKUTTY, S/O.MAMMU, A.P HOUSE, VALIYA VALAPPU, JAYANTHI ROAD, P.O. NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. MOOSA KOYA, S/O.ALI, ELAYATH THAZHAM HOUSE P.O, FEROKE COLLEGE,KOZHIKODE 673 633 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM- 682 031 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: STK S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2862 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 O R D E R Revision is by the accused, who has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 {for short ‘the Act'} concurrently by two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused as modified by the Sessions Judge in appeal is simple imprisonment for 15 days with direction to pay compensation to the complainant, the cheque amount of Rs.52,000/- with default term of simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The revision coming up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that he has no arguments on merits to assail the conviction, but only against the substantive term of imprisonment Crl.R.P.No.2862 of 2011 :: 2 :: imposed with a request to be be made for grant of some more time for payment of the compensation and thus, to avoid the default term of imprisonment. 3. Going through the judgments rendered by the learned magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, I find that no special circumstance has been made out in the case to justify a harsh punishment to direct the incarceration of the accused for the term fixed for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The liability arising under a dishonoured cheque primarily being a civil liability, where no special circumstance is made out for imposition of a severe punishment, I find, the outlook of the court should be more to compensate the complainant than be punitive. So much so, I find, the substantive term of imprisonment imposed against Crl.R.P.No.2862 of 2011 :: 3 :: the accused can be reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation fixed with the default term of imprisonment. A short time, as indicated hereunder, can also be granted to enable him to pay the compensation and, thus avoid the default term of imprisonment. 4. Affirming the conviction, sentence imposed against the accused is reduced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, retaining the compensation fixed with the default term of imprisonment. Accused is directed to appear before the magistrate on 01.02.2012, to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of the court and to report the payment of compensation. The magistrate shall keep in abeyance the execution of the sentence till the date fixed as above for Crl.R.P.No.2862 of 2011 :: 4 :: his appearance, to enable him to pay the compensation within such period. In default of his appearance and non-payment of the compensation, the magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Revision is disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.