IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1949 of 2010()
1. DR. JINO, S/O. JOY, THAZHATHOTTU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K. MOHANDAS, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.RAJA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :07/07/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-----------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1949 of 2010
---------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July 2010
O R D E R
This revision petition is preferred by the complainant
in a prosecution for the offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, as he is aggrieved by the inadequate
sentence imposed against the accused though he is found
guilty under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act wherein the cheque
amount covers an amount of Rs.67,000/-.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent.
3. Going by the trial court judgment it can be seen
that even though the respondent/accused is found guilty
under Sec.138 of the N.I.Act, the sentence of imprisonment
awarded against him is only simple imprisonment till the
rising of the court and the compensation amount fixed is
Crl.R.P.No.1949 of 2010
: 2 :
only to an amount equal to the cheque amount ie;
Rs.67,000/- that too without imposing any default sentence.
3. Recently, in the decision in Abbas v. Sabu
Joseph [2010 (2) KLT 943 (SC)], the Apex Court has held
that the sentence of imprisonment can be ordered in case of
default in paying compensation awarded under Sec.357(3).
In the present case, the cheque in question is dated
30.4.2006. Due to the dishonour of the cheque for want of
sufficient fund in the account maintained by the accused,
the complainant was forced to initiate legal steps and he
was prosecuting the case because of the negligence and
default on the part of the accused in paying the cheque
amount. On conviction, of course, the sentence of
imprisonment is not mandatory but the court can impose a
sentence of fine, which can be fixed as equal to the double
of the cheque amount. But in the present case, the
compensation fixed is only Rs.67,000/-, an amount shown in
the cheque in question and the imprisonment of sentence is
Crl.R.P.No.1949 of 2010
: 3 :
only till the rising of the court. No default sentence also
fixed.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
involved in the case, especially in the light of the Apex
Court decision in Abbas v. Sabu Joseph and
Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H, I am of the view
that while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment
ordered by the trial court the compensation amount can be
enhanced slightly and default sentence can also be fixed.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of
directing the accused/respondent to undergo simple
imprisonment till the rising of the court as ordered by the
trial court and he is directed to pay a compensation of
Rs.70,000/- to the revision petitioner/complainant under
Sec.357(3) of Cr.P.C. within one month from today. In case
any failure in paying the compensation amount within the
above stipulated time, the respondent/accused is directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
Crl.R.P.No.1949 of 2010
: 4 :
Accordingly the accused/respondent is directed to appear
before the trial court on or before 7th August, 2010 to
receive the sentence and to pay the compensation amount.
In case of any failure on the part of the accused/respondent
in appearing before the court below as directed above and
in making the deposit of compensation amount, the trial
court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of
the accused and to execute the sentence awarded against
him for the realization of the compensation amount, to be
paid to the revision petitioner.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
Jvt