Kerala High Court
C.Ramachandran vs C.Gopi on 17 May, 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/16TH ASWINA, 1935
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2017 of 2013
---------------------------------
Crl.A 94/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-II), KASARAGODE
DATED 17-05-2003
CC 801/1997 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, HOSDRUG
DATED 24-03-2000
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------
C.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE KANNAN,
THAIVALAPPU, PADIMARUTHU.P.O.,
PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S) AND STATE:
-------------------------------------
1. C.GOPI, MADAVI NILAYAM,
KANHANGAD SOUTH, KANHANGAD VILLAGE,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 08-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
stu
K.HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No.2017 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2013
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.801 of 1997 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Hosdurg as well as the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2000 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-II), Kasaragod. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted thereunder. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act and further directed to pay an amount of 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Sec.357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though he had preferred the above criminal appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the verdict of guilty and conviction but modified the sentence. The substantive sentence of simple imprisonment for six months Crl.R.P.No.2017 of 2013 2 was reduced and modified to simple imprisonment for two months and maintained the rest of the sentence as such. This revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.
2. Though this revision petition has been filed on various grounds challenging the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the amount directed to be paid as compensation was realised from the revision petitioner and the same is evidenced by Annexure A1 receipt dated 05/03/2010 issued by the Village Officer. He had already undergone the substantive sentence of imprisonment in execution of the sentence ordered under the impugned judgment and now he stands released by the order dated 01/10/2013 of this Court.
3. The learned counsel urged for modification of the substantive sentence, in view of the payment of compensation as directed by the court below, which is evidenced by Annexure A1 receipt issued by the Village Crl.R.P.No.2017 of 2013 3 Officer, in realisation of the said amount through the process of revenue recovery. Though notice has been served on the 1st respondent by special messenger, he did not enter appearance to contest this revision petition on merits.
4. The Supreme Court, in the decision in Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore (AIR 2011 SC 2566), held that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is almost in the nature of civil wrong which has been given criminal overtone, and imposition of fine payable as compensation is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Further, in Vijayan vs. Baby (2011(4) KLT 355), Supreme Court held that the direction to pay the compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of the dishonour of the cheque should be practical and realistic. So, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the compensatory aspect of remedy should be given much priority over punitive aspect.
5. Having regard to the fact that he had paid the entire compensation and also he had already undergone Crl.R.P.No.2017 of 2013 4 substantive sentence of imprisonment for five days, in view of the above decision laid down by the Supreme Court, I am inclined to reduce and modify the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment also.
6. Consequently, In supersession of the sentence imposed by the trial court and modified by the appellate court, the revision petitioner will stand sentenced to simple imprisonment for the period under which he had already undergone and no further imprisonment need be enforced on him in execution of the impugned judgment. Similarly, the amount which had been realised in revenue recovery proceedings shall be given to the complainant/1st respondent as compensation under Sec.357(3) of the Cr.P.C, forthwith.
This revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge.