Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 18TH POUSHA 193 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 51 of 2013 ----------------------------- REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT: -------------------------------- IBRAHIM V.P AGED 6 YEARS, VALLIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALATHINGAL, CHEMBRASSERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE : ----------------------------------- 1. GEETHA.T., AGED 3 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAKRIHSNAN, MANGOTTIL HOUSE, KIZHATTUR P.O., PATTIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J.
------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.51 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 08th day of January, 2013 ORDER The challenge in this Crl.R.P. is against the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I.Act').
2. As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of the court below, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is too harsh and exorbitant and the same may be set aside and it is the further submission of the counsel that the petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant for which some time may be granted.
3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that, the above submission of the counsel requires positive consideration, particularly in the light of the decision of the Apex Court Crl.R.P.No.51/2013 :
2. : reported in Damodar.S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal.H. [JT 2010(4) SC 457], wherein it is held that in the case of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspects. Thus following the above decision, according to me, the sentence of imprisonment can be modified, but at the very same time, the compensation amount can be enhanced while imposing sentence of fine.
4. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as recorded by the court below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court is modified and reduced to one day simple imprisonment, that till the rising of the court and in addition to that, the petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of `1,15,000/- within three months from today, in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months. Accordingly, Crl.R.P.No.51/2013 :
3. : the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court to receive the modified sentence and to deposit the fine amount on 08/04/2013. On realization of the fine amount, a sum of `1,12,500/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount of `2,500/- shall be remitted in the State Exchequer on 08/04/2013. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court on the above date to receive the sentence fixed by this Court and to pay the compensation amount within the time stipulated, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence and to realise the compensation amount. Execution of the coercive steps, if any, pending against the petitioner, shall be deferred till 08/04/2013. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE skj