IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3200 of 2010()
1. JAYACHANDRAN, KUTTIVILAYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SATHEESH KUMAR, SARATHA MANDIRAM,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :08/11/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl. R.P.No.3200 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010.
O R D E R
Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against
the accused in a prosecution for an offence u/s.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, the revision petitioner preferred this revision
petition.
2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted
that the revision petitioner has no contention on merit but his
grievance is with respect to the unreasonable and exorbitant
sentence of imprisonment awarded by the court below and it is
also the submission of the learned counsel that the revision
petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant, for which he
require some time.
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in
the case, I am of the view that the said submission can be
considered positively but subject to other relevant inputs involved
in the case. The cheque in question is dated 21.6.2005 that too
2
Crl. R.P.No.3200 of 2010
for an amount of Rs.60,000/- and as per the findings of the
court below, which approved by this court, though the amount
covered by the cheque which belonged to the complainant is
with the revision petitioner for the last 5 years. The apex court in
a recent 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. In the light of
the above settled legal position and the facts referred above, I
am of the view that, the sentence of imprisonment awarded
against the revision petitioner can be modified and the revision
petitioner can be granted some time to compensate the
complainant.
In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming
the conviction against the revision petitioner u/s.138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act as recorded by the courts below.
Accordingly, in suppression of the sentence to undergo simple
imprisonment, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay fine
only and accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay
3
Crl. R.P.No.3200 of 2010
a fine of Rs.76,500/-, within 3 months from today and in default
he is further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 3
months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit
the fine amount refixed by this court on or before 9.2.2011. In
case, any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in
appearing before the court below as directed above and in
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 awarded against the revision
petitioner. On realisation the fine amount, a sum of Rs.71,500/-
shall be paid to the complainant as compensation u/s.357(1)(b)
of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be paid to the State
Exchequer. The execution of warrant if any, pending against the
revision petitioner shall be deferred till 9.2.2011.
Criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
ami/