IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 273 of 2011()
1. T.NARAYANAN, S/O.T.KANNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.PADMANABHAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.PRASAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :31/01/2011
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl. R.P. No.273 of 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011.
O R D E R
The accused in a prosecution for the offence under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for
short `the N.I Act’) approached this Court by preferring
the above revision petition challenging his conviction
and sentence, imposed as per judgments of the trial
court as well as the lower appellate court.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the revision
petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents.
3. As this court is not inclined to interfere with the
order of conviction recorded by the courts below, the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted
that the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court
below is exorbitant and unreasonable and further
submitted that some breathing time may be granted to
the revision petitioner to pay the compensation amount
and permit him to pay the same to the complainant
directly. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
involved in the case, I am of the view that, the said
submission requires serious consideration. But at the
same time, the interest of the complainant has also to
be protected, especially in the light of the decision
reported in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal .H.
(JT 2010 (4) SC 457), wherein it is held that, in case of
dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the
remedy should be given priority over the punitive
aspects. The cheque in question is dated 15.10.2003 for
an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. Considering the above settled legal position and
the facts which I referred to above, I am of the view
that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the
revision petitioner requires modification and while
granting time to the revision petitioner to pay the
compensation. The compensation amount can be
enhanced slightly, considering the fact that, the amount
covered by the cheque in question is due to the
complainant for the last 7 years.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of
confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner
under Section 138 of N.I Act as recorded by the court
below and accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment
ordered by the court below is modified and reduced to
one day simple imprisonment that till the rising of the
court. Whereas, the revision petitioner is further
directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees
One lakh thirty thousand only) to the complainant
within three months from today and in default, the
revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 3 months. Accordingly,
the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the
trial court on 04.04.011. It is made clear that, the
revision petitioner is free to pay the enhanced
compensation either directly to the complainant or by
way of remitting the same in the trial court, which ever
subject to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If
there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner
in appearing before the court below and paying the
compensation amount, 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. The coercive steps if any
pending against the revision petitioner shall deferred
till 04.04.2011.
Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.K.MOHANAN),
Judge
ss/-
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge