IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 412 of 2011() ----------------------------------------- CRA.47/2009 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT NO.II, PATHANAMTHITTA CC.184/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RANNI .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR, 36 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, IYYAKKATTU HOUSE,KAKKUDUMON,PONNAMPARA, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.PRAKASH KESAVAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. K.V.ABRAHAM, PUNNAMOOTIL, NARANAMMOOZHY, ATHIKKAYAM, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.PIN- 689 672. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V.K. MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO. 412 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The challenge is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction imposed against the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is undergoing imprisonment in jail in pursuance to the impugned judgment and the sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is exorbitant and unreasonable. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant and he requires some time for the same. 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 dt.13.04.05 that too for an 2 Crl.R.P.NO. 412 of 2011 amount of Rs.1,25,000/-. As per the findings and evidence, the said amount is due to the complainant at least from the date of the cheque, but so far no amount is paid to the complainant. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H.(JT 2010(4) SC 457) has held that in the case of dishonor of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. Therefore, according to me the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the petitioner requires modification and at the very same time the interest of the complainant has also to be protected and the petitioner can be granted breathing time to pay the amount to be fixed by this Court. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under section 138 of the N.I. Act as recorded by the Trial court as well as Appellate Court. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner is modified and reduced into 3 Crl.R.P.NO. 412 of 2011 imprisonment for three days. In addition to the above sentence, instead of direction to pay compensation, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,56,250/- within three months from today. If there is any default in paying the fine amount within the above stipulated time, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 4. As the petitioner has already been arrested and under going imprisonment, there will be direction to the trial court to release the petitioner on bail for a period of three months on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court and on further condition the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the date of execution of the bond and on further condition paying balance amount of Rs.1,06,250/- within two months from the date of his release from the jail. On realization of the above fine amount, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be paid to the 4 Crl.R.P.NO. 412 of 2011 complainant as compensation under section 357(1)(b) of Cr.PC and a sum of Rs. 6,250/-shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. If there is any failure on the part of the petitioner in paying the fine amount as directed above within the period indicated above, the trial court is free to issue coercive steps to execute the sentence and for realization of the fine amount. The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE. rkc