IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2642 of 2011() ------------------------------ CRA.333/2010 of the court of Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Palakkad ST.280/2008 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - II,OTTAPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- S.RAJENDRAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, SUDHA NIVAS, CHERPULASSERY AMSOM DESOM, P.O.CHERPULASSERY, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------------------- 1. C.C.JOMY, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 52 YEARS, CHOORAKKAT HOUSE, CHERPULASSERY P.O., OTTAPPALAM TALUK, MG.PARTNER OF AISWARYA KURIES & LOANS, EMS ROAD, CHERPULASSERY - REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT RAMADAS, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 45 YEARS, PARAKOTTIL VEEDU, SREEKRISHNAPURAM DESOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J. --------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 2642 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 ORDER Revision is by the accused in cheque case. He has been convicted of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act”) concurrently by the two courts below. Sentence imposed against the accused as modified by the Sessions Judge in appeal, is simple imprisonment of one month with direction to pay compensation of Rs.7,884/- (Rupees Seven thousand eight hundred and eighty four only), the cheque amount, to the complainant with default term of simple imprisonment for 15 days. Feeling aggrieved, the accused has preferred this revision. 2. When the revision came up for consideration today the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted Crl.R.P. No.2642 OF 2011 -2- that he has no argument to challenge the conviction, but only against the sentence awarding substantive term of imprisonment with a request for grant of ten days time for payment of the compensation fixed, to avoid the default term of imprisonment. In the light of the submissions made as above that there is no challenge against the conviction, I find no notice to the 1st respondent/complainant in the revision is warranted, and it is dispensed with. 3. Cheque amount involved in the case is Rs.7,884/- (Rupees Seven thousand eight hundred and eighty four only). Substantive term of imprisonment awarded in the case on conviction of the offence over dishonour of that instrument, simple imprisonment for one month, is highly excessive and unreasonable. The liability covered by that dishonoured instrument but for the inclusion of it as an offence under Seciton 138 of the Act, subject to the essential conditions required to be satisfied for prosecution thereof, no doubt, is a civil liability. When that be so in the Crl.R.P. No.2642 OF 2011 -3- absence of exceptional circumstances in the case on conviction of such offence, the outlook of the Court in awarding the sentence should be to compensate the complainant rather than punitive. Considering the amount covered by the dishonored instrument and also taking note that no special circumstance involved in the case warranting imposition of imprisonment for a term against the accused, I find that part of the sentence has to be modified reducing it to imprisonment till the rising of court. The request made for grant of time for payment is found to be reasonable, and it can be granted. 4. Affirming the conviction, the sentence imposed against the accused is modified and reduced to imprisonment till the rising of court retaining the compensation awarded with the default term provided. Petitioner is directed to appear before the magistrate on 21.11.2011 to serve out the imprisonment till the rising of court and to report the payment of compensation. The Crl.R.P. No.2642 OF 2011 -4- Magistrate is directed to keep in abeyance the execution of sentence against the accused till the date fixed as above for his appearance to enable him to pay the compensation within such period. In default of his appearance and non payment of compensation the Magistrate shall execute the sentence taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. The revision is disposed of subject to the above directions. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE. Kp/-