IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE, 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1106 of 2011 ------------------------------------- (CRA.860/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM ST.226/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-VII, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------- P.S.FRANCIS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, PEZHUMVILA MARY VILASOM, KUMBALAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY ZACHARIA RESPONDENTS(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------- 1. HUDCO, REGIONAL OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER (LAW). 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1106 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2011 O R D E R The challenge in this Crl.R.P. is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act'). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no contention on merit and he requires some time to compensate the complainant. By producing Annexure A1 discharge certificate, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner had met with an accident and therefore, he was advised to take rest at least for six months. Though the Magistrate Court imposed the sentence of imprisonment for a period of four months, the lower appellate court reduced the same to one day simple imprisonment i.e., till the rising of the court. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence of imprisonment ordered by appellate court may be set Crl.R.PNO. 1106 of 2011 :-2-: aside. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant, but he requires some time. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the above submission of the learned counsel requires positive consideration, especially in the light of the fact that the petitioner had met with an accident and he was advised to take rest at least for six months. 3. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the cheques in question are dated 20.6.2002, 20.7.2002 and 20.8.2002 and the total amount will come about `.17,300/- . The complainant is a public undertaking. It is also a fact as borne out from Annexure A1 document that the petitioner has met with an accident on 30.9.2010 and he had undergone treatment as indicated in Annexure A1. In the light of the above facts and in view of the decision reported in Damodar.S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457] wherein it was held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the Crl.R.PNO. 1106 of 2011 :-3-: compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects, I am of the view that the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner requires reconsideration and the petitioner can be granted breathing time to compensate the complainant, but at the same time, the interest of the complainant also has to be protected. In the result, this Criminal 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 appellate court is set aside and the sentence is confined to fine only. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of `.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) within three months from today and in default, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of `.20,000/- in the trial court on or before 7th September, 2011. In case of any failure on the part of the revision Crl.R.PNO. 1106 of 2011 :-4-: petitioner in making the deposit of fine amount on or before the above date, 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. On realisation of the fine amount, the entire amount shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 7th September,2011. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. MBS/