IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3248 of 2010 () ------------------------------ (CRA.382/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KASARAGOD STC.1182/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG) .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.RAMESHAN MASTER, AGED 40 YEARS, PUTHIYADAVAN HOUSE, RESIDING AT THIMIRI, THIMIRI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.SREEVINAYAKAN K.V. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.V.BABU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. K.V.NARAYANAN, KOTTILA VEEDU, WEAVER'S STREET, NILESHWAR, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, P.O.NILESHWAR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3248 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, this revision petition is preferred. 2. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no contention on merit, but his grievance is with respect to the unreasonable and exorbitant sentence imposed by the court below, which, according to the learned counsel is liable to be set aside. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant, but he requires some time. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires some consideration. The cheque in question is dated 11.7.2006 and that too for an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. As Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010 :-2-: per the findings of the courts below, the said amount is due to the complainant for the last four years. 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 dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. Therefore, according to me, the sentence awarded against the revision petitioner requires some modification, particularly considering the fact that the revision petitioner is a school master and he can also be granted some time to compensate the complainant. But, while fixing the amount, the fact that the cheque pertains to the year 2006 also to be considered. 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, in suppression of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court below, the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2,10,000/- (Rupees Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010 :-3-: Two Lakhs Ten Thousand only) within three months from today. In case of any default in paying the fine amount, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and on realisation of the fine, an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the balance amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/ accused is directed to appear before the trial court on 01.02.2011 to to deposit the fine amount. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner depositing the fine amount on 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. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the petitioner shall be deferred till 01.02.2011. MBS/ V.K.Mohanan, Judge. Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010 :-4-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010 :-5-: Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2010 Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010 :-6-: Accordingly, 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 now ordered by the lower appellate court is confirmed and the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.,000/- which shall be paid by the revision petitioner within three months from today and in case of any default in paying the amount, the Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010 :-7-: revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and on realisation of the compensation amount, the entire amount shall be paid to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the trial court on .11.2010 to receive the sentence and to deposit the compensation amount. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court and making the deposit of compensation amount on 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. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the petitioner shall be deferred till .11.2010. Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010 :-8-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010 :-9-: DATED: -2-2010 Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010 :-10-: