RAJANISREE Vs. C GOPINATH

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 20-08-2007, that too, for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. 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 4 years. The trial court imposed a sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment which was considered and modified by the appellate court and accordingly reduced into till the raising of the court. 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. In the light of the facts indicated above and the settled legal position, I am of the view that while confirming the sentence of imprisonment ordered against the revision petitioner, some time can be given to the petitioner to pay the compensation amount.