P. Rameshan Master v. K.V. Babu and State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Mohanan
Judgment Date: 2010-11-04
Court Decision / Holding: Criminal Revision Petition disposed of; conviction confirmed under Section 138 NI Act; sentence modified: fine of Rs. 2,10,000 to be paid within three months; in default, three months' simple imprisonment; upon realization of the fine, Rs. 2,05,000 to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., and the balance to the State Exchequer; petitioner to appear on 01.02.2011 to deposit the fine; coercive steps deferred till that date.
Final Disposition: The revision petition is disposed of; conviction under Section 138 NI Act is confirmed; sentence modified to impose a substantial fine with compensation payable to the complainant; default provisions and appearance dates specified; coercive steps deferred until the specified date.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. Rameshan Master

Respondents

K.V. Babu
The State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Smt. P.K. Priya
• Sri. Sreevinayakan K.V.

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, SMT. P.N. Sumangala

Case Synopsis & Summary

High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard a Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3248 of 2010) challenging the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner, P. Rameshan Master, argues that while there is no dispute on the merits, the sentence is unwarranted and excessive; he is willing to compensate the complainant but seeks time to do so. The cheque in dispute is dated 11 July 2006 for Rs 1,75,000, reflecting a liability that had remained unpaid for several years, as observed by the lower courts. The court cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., JT 2010(4) SC 457, which underscores that the compensatory aspect of the remedy should take precedence over punitive measures in cheque dishonour cases. Taking into account the petitioner’s status as a school master, the court opts to modify rather than uphold a purely punitive sentence. The order confirms the conviction but substitutes the sentence: the revision petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs 2,10,000 within three months. If default occurs, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Upon realization of the fine, Rs 2,05,000 shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., with the balance deposited in the State Exchequer. The petitioner is to appear on 01.02.2011 to deposit the fine, with coercive steps deferred until that date.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.Section 357(3) Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Compensation over punishment doctrine in cheque dishonour cases (Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the conviction is sound but the sentence is unreasonable and excessive. He is ready to compensate the complainant but seeks time to arrange payment. Referring to the cheque dated 11.07.2006 for Rs. 1,75,000, he argues that the liability has remained unsatisfied for years and that a compensation-centric remedy should be prioritized over punitive measures, a position supported by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. The court should thus modify the sentence to provide the accused a reasonable window to compensate, particularly given his occupation as a school master.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Cited to support prioritizing the compensatory remedy over punitive measures in cheque dishonour cases.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN** **THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3248 of 2010 ()** **------------------------------** **(CRA.382/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KASARAGOD STC.1182/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HOSDRUG)** **....................** ## **REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED** **--------------------------------------** **P.RAMESHAN MASTER, AGED 40 YEARS, PUTHIYADAVAN HOUSE, RESIDING AT THIMIRI, THIMIRI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.SREEVINAYAKAN K.V.** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE** **------------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. K.V.BABU, AGED 35 YEARS,** **S/O. K.V.NARAYANAN, KOTTILA VEEDU, WEAVER'S STREET, NILESHWAR, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, P.O.NILESHWAR.** **2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.P.N.SUMANGALA** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **VK** ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.3248 of 2010 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 2010** ## **O R D E R** Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner/accused under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, this revision petition is preferred. 2. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no contention on merit, but his grievance is with respect to the unreasonable and exorbitant sentence imposed by the court below, which, according to the learned counsel is liable to be set aside. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant, but he requires some time. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires some consideration. The cheque in question is dated 11.7.2006 and that too for an amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. As ## **Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010** ## **:-2-:** per the findings of the courts below, the said amount is due to the complainant for the last four years. The Honourable Apex Court in the 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. Therefore, according to me, the sentence awarded against the revision petitioner requires some modification, particularly considering the fact that the revision petitioner is a school master and he can also be granted some time to compensate the complainant. But, while fixing the amount, the fact that the cheque pertains to the year 2006 also to be considered. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, in suppression of the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the court below, the petitioner is sentenced to pay fine of **Rs.2,10,000/-** (Rupees ## **Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010** **:-3-:** Two Lakhs Ten Thousand only) within three months from today. In case of any default in paying the fine amount, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and on realisation of the fine, an amount of Rs.2,05,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the balance amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/ accused is directed to appear before the trial court on **01.02.2011** to to deposit the fine amount. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner depositing the fine amount on the above date, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the petitioner shall be deferred till **01.02.2011** . MBS/ ## **V.K.Mohanan, Judge.** ## **Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010** **:-4-:** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------- ## **Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010** **:-5-:** Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -----------------------------------J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2010 ## **Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010** **:-6-:** Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I.Act as recorded by the courts below. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment now ordered by the lower appellate court is confirmed and the compensation amount is enhanced to Rs.,000/- which shall be paid by the revision petitioner within three months from today and in case of any default in paying the amount, the ## **Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010** **:-7-:** revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and on realisation of the compensation amount, the entire amount shall be paid to the complainant under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the trial court on **.11.2010** to receive the sentence and to deposit the compensation amount. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in appearing before the trial court and making the deposit of compensation amount on the above date, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure the presence of the revision petitioner and to execute the sentence. Coercive steps, if any, pending against the petitioner shall be deferred till **.11.2010** . ## **Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010** **:-8-:** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -----------------------------------J U D G M E N T ## **Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010** ## **:-9-:** DATED: -2-2010 ## **Crl.R.PNO. 3248 of 2010** **:-10-:**