JOY PRAKASH Vs. S PUSHPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Crl.R.P. is against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner who is the accused in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) As this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of conviction, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner is unreasonable and exorbitant and therefore a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be granted sufficient time to compensate the complainant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that the said submission of the learned counsel requires positive consideration.

(3.) The cheque in question is dated 31.01.2007, that too, for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Though the courts below have concurrently found that the said amount is due to the complainant, so far no amount is seen paid to the complainant. Thus, as per the record and findings of the courts below, which upheld by this Court, the said amount is with the revision petitioner for the last 3 years. The apex court, in its recent decision in Damodar S.Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (J.T.2010 (4) SC 457), has held that in a case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Accordingly, while granting some time to pay the fine amount, the interest of the complainant is also to be protected. Therefore, the fine amount can be enhanced slightly considering the fact that the cheque amount is due for the last three years.