IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1468 of 2010()
1. ABBAS MUHAMMED KUNHI (46 YEARS),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.ABDUL RAHMAN (36 YEARS),
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :23/06/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 23rd day of June 2010
O R D E R
As the parties in these two revision petitions are one
and same and the revision petitions are directed against the
findings of the same court and the issue raised is common,
these revision petitions are heard together.
Crl.R.P.No.1468 of 2010
In this case, the cheque in question dated 5.6.2006 and
the amount involved is Rs.90,000/-. During the trial of the
case, PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked.
On the side of the defence Dws.1 and 2 were examined and
Ext.D1 was marked. This revision petition is preferred
against the judgment dated 28.8.2008 in
S.T.C.No.1145/2006 of the J.F.C.M. Court II, Hosdurg and
Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010
: 2 :
the judgment dated 4.2.2010 in Crl.A.No.315/2008 of the
Sessions Court, Kasaragod.
Crl.R.P.No.1469 of 2010
This revision petition is preferred against the judgment
dated 28.8.2008 in S.T.C.No.1198/2006 of the J.F.C.M.
Court II, Hosdurg and also against the judgment dated
4.2.2010 in Crl.A.No.316/2008 of the Sessions Court,
Kasaragod. In the present case also the cheque in question
marked as Ext.P1 dated 5.6.2006 for an amount of
Rs.90,000/-. In this case also from the side of the
complainant PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were
marked. On the side of the accused Dws.1 and 2 were
examined and Ext.D1 was marked.
2. The main challenge in these revision petitions is
against the sentence and the order of compensation
imposed against the revision petitioner by the courts below.
Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010
: 3 :
3. I have heard Mr.C.K.Sreejith, the learned counsel
appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the
judgments of the courts below.
4. The learned counsel submitted that some time
may be granted to the revision petitioner to make the
payment of compensation.
5. According to me, the above submission can be
considered favourably but subject to other facts and
circumstances involved in the case.
6. In both the cases the cheques were issued in the
year 2006 and each cheque was for an amount of
Rs.90,000/-. In the light of the findings of the courts below
as per the records, it has to be presumed that a total sum of
Rs.1,80,000/- is with the revision petitioner for the last 4
years. It is also pertinent to note that the trial court
imposed a sentence of 6 months, the lower appellate court
has reduced the same till the rising of the court and the
compensation is fixed as equivalent to the cheque amount.
Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010
: 4 :
The Apex Court in the decision in Damodar.S.Prabhu v.
Sayed Babalal.H. [J.T. 2010 (4) SC 457] held that in the
mater of dishonour of cheque the compensatory aspect of
the remedy shall be given preference than the punitive
aspect. Considering the above legal position and the facts
involved in the present cases, I am of the view that while
setting aside the sentence of imprisonment, the
compensation amount awarded against the revision
petitioner can be enhanced at the rate of Rs.7,500/-. Thus
these revision petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Crl.R.P.No.1468/2010
This revision petition is disposed of confirming the
conviction of the revision petitioner under Sec.138 of the
N.I.Act and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against
the revision petitioner is set aside and he is sentenced to
pay a fine of Rs.97,500/- and in default he is directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. On
Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010
: 5 :
realization of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.95,000/- shall be
paid to the complainant under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
Crl.R.P.No.1469/2010
This revision petition is disposed of confirming the
conviction of the revision petitioner under Sec.138 of the
N.I.Act and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against
the revision petitioner is set aside and he is sentenced to
pay a fine of Rs.97,500/- and in default he is directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. On
realization of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.95,000/- shall be
paid to the complainant under Sec.357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
It is ordered that the default sentence in the above two
cases shall run consecutively. Accordingly, the revision
petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on
23rd September, 2010 to make the deposit of fine amount.
In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in
appearing before the trial court as directed above and
making the deposit of the fine amount, the trial court is free
Crl.R.P.Nos.1468 & 1469 of 2010
: 6 :
to take coercive steps against the revision petitioner and to
execute the sentence.
Both these revision petitions are disposed of as
above.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
Jvt