P. Rameshan v. V. Prasanth and The 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 under Section 138 NI Act confirmed; sentence modified to a monetary fine of Rs.2,25,000 to be deposited within 45 days; default would incur simple imprisonment for two months. Upon realization of the fine, Rs.2,20,000 would be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., with the balance to the State Exchequer; the petitioner is to appear before the trial court on 11.11.2010 to receive the sentence and deposit the compensation amount; coercive steps, if any, deferred till 17.12.2010.
Final Disposition: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act confirmed; sentence modified to monetary fine with a compensated remedy; appearance and deposit deadlines set; coercive steps deferred.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. Rameshan

Respondents

V. Prasanth
The State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SMT. P.K. Priya
• Sri Sreevinayakan KV

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sabu Sreedharan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the revision petitioner P. Rameshan challenges the sentence in the Kerala High Court. The record shows that the petitioner, a government high school teacher, does not dispute the merits of the conviction but seeks indulgence in the punishment on the ground that he needs time to pay the compensation due to the complainant. The counsel submits that as a public servant, the petitioner should not be subjected to a severe substantive penalty and that he is prepared to compensate the complainant, albeit in installments. The court, while recognising the need to alleviate the financial burden on the accused and the importance of the compensatory remedy, considers a principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. The judgment notes that in cheque dishonor cases, the remedy should emphasize compensation over punitive elements. Consequently, the revision petition is disposed of, with the conviction confirmed but the sentence modified to a monetary fine only. The accused is directed to pay Rs 2,25,000 as fine within 45 days; failure to deposit triggers simple imprisonment for two months. Upon realization of the fine, Rs 2,20,000 is to be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C., with the balance (if any) going to the State Exchequer. The trial court is to ensure compliance, and coercive steps are deferred until a specified 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

Compensatory principle in cheque bounce cases: compensation should be given priority over punitive aspects (Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that while there is no challenge to the conviction on merits, time should be granted to pay the compensation. Being a government school teacher, the petitioner asks for some leniency in the substantive sentence and is ready to compensate the complainant, proposing a schedule for payment. He relies on the principle that compensatory relief should take precedence over punitive punishment in cheque-bounce cases, citing the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.

Contentions of Respondents

Not explicitly stated in the provided text; the court’s decision is guided by the compensatory-priority principle cited above, with the petitioner's submission considered in light of Damodar S. Prabhu.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.	JT 2010(4) SC 457	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that in cheque dishonor cases, the compensatory remedy should be given priority over punitive aspects.

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. 3243 of 2010 ()** **------------------------------** **( CRA.283/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CC.821/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD)** **....................** ## **REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED** **---------------------------------------------------------------** **P.RAMESHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHIRAMAN.P, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, GOVT.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MATHIL.P.O, MATHIL,KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.SREEVINAYAKAN.K.V** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS** **----------------------------------------------** **1. V.PRASANTH,AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.K.P.VAMADEVAN, MANNIKOTH HOUSE, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, POST RAMDAS NAGAR, KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.** **2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN** **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. 3243 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 he requires some time to pay the compensation amount. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that since the revision petitioner, being a school teacher and working in a Government School, the substantive sentence imposed against him may be set aside and the petitioner is ready to compensate the complainant, but he requires some time for the same. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the said submission requires serious consideration. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in **Damodar.S.Prabhu** v. **Sayed** **Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010** ## **:-2-:** **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. It is also relevant to note that the cheque in question is dated 29.9.2006 and as per the findings of the courts below, the amount covered by the cheque in question belongs to the complainant. Therefore, I am of the view that the sentence ordered by the revision petitioner requires some modification and while granting breathing time to deposit the amount, the amount can be enhanced slightly. 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 modification of the sentence ordered by the court below and in suppression of the substantive sentence, the sentence is confined to fine only. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of **Rs.2,25,000/-** (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only) and the revision petitioner is further directed to deposit the said amount within 45 days from **Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010** ## **:-3-:** today. In case of any default in depositing the fine amount, within the above time limit, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/accused is directed to deposit the fine amount of **Rs.2,25,000/-** on or before **17.12.2010** . On realisation of the fine amount, an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the balance shall be paid to the State Exchequer. In case of any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in making the deposit of fine amount on or before 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 **17.12.2010** . **V.K.Mohanan, Judge.** MBS/ **Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010** ## **:-4-:** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------- **Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010** **:-5-:** Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2010 **Crl.R.PNO. 3243 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 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. **Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010** **:-7-:** 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. 3243 of 2010** **:-8-:** **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -----------------------------------J U D G M E N T DATED: -2-2010 **Crl.R.PNO. 3243 of 2010** **:-9-:**